For Christmas I got an interesting gift from a friend - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a few simple triggers about me provided by my good friend Janet.

It's an intriguing read, and really funny in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It simulates my chatty style of writing, but it's likewise a bit recurring, and very verbose. It might have gone beyond Janet's prompts in collecting data about me.

Several sentences begin "as a leading technology reporter ..." - cringe - which might have been scraped from an online bio.

There's likewise a mystical, repeated hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no family pets). And there's a metaphor on practically every page - some more random than others.

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

When I called the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 customised books, generally in the US, considering that pivoting from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody producing one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are around abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, created by AI, and designed "entirely to bring humour and delight".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is meant as a "personalised gag gift", and machinform.com the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to expand his variety, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps offering an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human customers.

It's likewise a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have revealed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then churn out comparable material based upon it.

"We must be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we really imply human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, junkerhq.net which projects for AI companies to respect creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, 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 song including AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms since it was not their work and they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's developer attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for imaginative functions must be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without authorization ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very effective but let's construct it ethically and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese competitors using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

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

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have selected to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

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

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He explains that AI can make advances in locations like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, reporters and artists.

"All of these things work without going and changing copyright law and destroying the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also strongly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and a great deal of pleasure," says the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The federal government is undermining among its finest carrying out markets on the unclear pledge of development."

A federal government spokesperson said: "No move will be made up until we are absolutely positive we have a useful plan that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to help them accredit their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide information library consisting of public data from a wide variety of sources will also be offered to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules to manage 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 boost the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share information of the operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, but he is stated to want the AI sector to deal with less regulation.

This comes as a number of lawsuits against AI firms, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been taken out by everybody from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They declare that the AI firms broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their consent, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can constitute fair usage - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it gathers training data and whether it must be paying for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to ponder, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being the a lot of downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

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

As for me and a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I really want a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather challenging to check out in parts because it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is evolving, I'm uncertain for how long I can stay positive that my substantially slower human writing and editing abilities, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in worldwide technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Register here.