For Christmas I received a fascinating gift from a friend - my really own "best-selling" book.

"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (excellent title) bears my name and my picture on its cover, and it has glowing evaluations.

Yet it was completely composed by AI, with a few simple triggers about me provided by my pal Janet.

It's a fascinating read, and uproarious in parts. But it also meanders rather a lot, and is someplace between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It imitates my chatty style of writing, however it's likewise a bit repeated, and really verbose. It might have gone beyond Janet's triggers in collecting information about me.

Several sentences start "as a leading innovation reporter ..." - cringe - which could have been scraped from an online bio.

There's also a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the type of my feline (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on almost every page - some more random than others.

There are dozens of business online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually offered around 150,000 customised books, generally in the US, because pivoting from putting together AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The firm uses its own AI tools to create them, based upon an open source big language model.

I'm not asking you to purchase my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, who produced it, can buy any additional copies.

There is currently no barrier to anybody developing one in any person's name, consisting of stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright comes from the company, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the product is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get offered further.

He wants to broaden his variety, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and maybe using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - offering AI-generated items to human clients.

It's likewise a bit scary if, like me, you write for a living. Not least because it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, certainly in some parts, forum.altaycoins.com sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have actually expressed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce similar content based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we actually indicate human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is photos. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to learn how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune including AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms due to the fact that it was not their work and they had not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for imaginative purposes need to be banned, however I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without consent need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective however let's construct it fairly and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes market and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have actually chosen to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for . Others have chosen to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to use creators' material on the internet to help establish their models, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He mentions that AI can make advances in areas like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, journalists and artists.

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and ruining the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is also highly against removing copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks and a lot of joy," says the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening one of its best performing markets on the unclear pledge of growth."

A government spokesperson said: "No relocation will be made up until we are definitely positive we have a practical strategy that provides each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to assist them license their material, access to premium material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI strategy, a national data library containing public data from a vast array of sources will also be provided to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal rules to control AI is now up in the air following President Trump's return to the presidency.

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to enhance the safety of AI with, amongst other things, companies in the sector required to share details of the workings of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, but he is said to desire the AI sector to face less regulation.

This comes as a number of claims versus AI firms, and particularly against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everyone from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They claim that the AI firms broke the law when they took their material from the internet without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of elements which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector tandme.co.uk is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training information and whether it need to be paying for it.

If this wasn't all enough to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being one of the most downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its innovation for a fraction of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current dominance of the sector.

As for me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I actually desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for bigger projects. It is complete of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite hard to read in parts since it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm uncertain for how long I can stay positive that my substantially slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in international technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.