For Christmas I received an intriguing present from a buddy - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was totally composed by AI, with a couple of basic triggers about me provided by my buddy Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and extremely verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's triggers in collecting data about me.

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

There's likewise a mystical, repeated hallucination in the type of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on practically 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 chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually sold around 150,000 customised books, mainly in the US, because 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 big language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "entirely to bring humour and pleasure".

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

He intends to expand drapia.org his variety, generating different categories such as sci-fi, and maybe providing an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human clients.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least because it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound just like me.

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

"We should be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we really suggest human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is images. It's works of art. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to discover how to do something and after that 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 because it was not their work and they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not think using generative AI for creative functions must be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without consent must be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be extremely effective however let's construct it fairly and fairly."

OpenAI says 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 damages America's swagger

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

The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to utilize developers' material on the web to assist develop their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He mentions 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 altering copyright law and messing up the incomes of the country's creatives," he argues.

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

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

"The government is undermining one of its finest performing markets on the vague pledge of development."

A federal government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made till we are definitely confident we have a useful strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to help them certify their content, access to premium material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's new AI plan, a nationwide information library including public data from a large range of sources will also be offered to AI .

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 security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the workings of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has now been repealed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is stated to want the AI sector to face less policy.

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

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

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a number of aspects which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it gathers training data and whether it need to be spending for it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to contemplate, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being the many downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

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

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has plenty of errors and hallucinations, and it can be rather difficult to check out in parts because it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm unsure for how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in international innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.