For Christmas I received an intriguing gift from a buddy - my very 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 totally composed by AI, with a couple of basic prompts about me provided by my friend Janet.

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

It imitates my chatty style of composing, however it's likewise a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It might have exceeded Janet's prompts in collating information about me.

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

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

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

When I contacted the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had actually offered around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, since pivoting from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

I'm not asking you to buy my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, who developed it, sitiosecuador.com can order any more copies.

There is presently no barrier to anyone creating one in anyone's name, consisting of celebrities - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, however Mr Mashiach stresses that the product is planned as a "personalised gag gift", and the books do not get offered even more.

He wants to widen his range, generating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it probably took less than a minute to produce, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound much like me.

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

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we in fact indicate human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to regard developers' 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 then do more like that."

In 2023 a song featuring 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 choose it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for imaginative purposes need to be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on individuals's work without authorization need to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really powerful however let's build 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 - including the BBC - have chosen to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to utilize developers' material on the web to help establish their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He points out 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 nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also strongly against eliminating copyright law for AI.

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

"The federal government is undermining among its finest performing markets on the vague guarantee of growth."

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

Under the UK government's new AI plan, a nationwide data library including public data from a vast array of sources will also be provided 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 aimed to improve 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 actually now been reversed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, bphomesteading.com however he is said to want the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

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

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

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of factors which can make up fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it collects training information and whether it ought to be paying for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has shaken the sector wolvesbaneuo.com over the past week. It ended up being the a lot of downloaded totally free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it established its innovation for a portion of the price of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weak point in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be rather hard to check out in parts since it's so long-winded.

But provided how quickly the tech is evolving, I'm unsure the length of time I can remain that my substantially slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in worldwide technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents all over the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.