For Christmas I received an intriguing present from a friend - my really own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was totally composed by AI, with a few easy triggers about me supplied by my buddy Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty design of writing, however it's likewise a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's triggers 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 also a mysterious, repeated hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on nearly every page - some more random than others.

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

When I got in touch with the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, given that rotating from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

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

There is currently no barrier to anyone creating one in anybody's name, consisting of stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and delight".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is planned as a "personalised gag present", and the books do not get sold further.

He hopes to broaden his range, generating different categories such as sci-fi, and possibly using an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - offering AI-generated goods to human clients.

It's also 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, definitely in some parts, geohashing.site sound similar to me.

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

"We ought to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we in fact imply human creators' life works," states 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 due to the fact that it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were phony, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for creative functions need to be prohibited, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without permission should be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really powerful but let's develop 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 industry and damages America's swagger

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

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to use developers' material on the internet to help develop their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He points out that AI can make advances in areas like defence, health care and logistics without trawling the work of authors, reporters and artists.

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

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

"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million jobs and a whole lot of pleasure," states the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening among its finest performing industries on the unclear pledge of growth."

A government representative said: "No move will be made up until we are absolutely positive we have a useful plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them license their content, access to high-quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for ideal holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library consisting of public information from a large range of sources will also be offered to AI scientists.

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

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to improve the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has actually now been repealed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, bphomesteading.com but he is stated to desire the AI sector to face less policy.

This comes as a variety of suits against AI companies, 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 comedian.

They claim that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the web without their approval, and used it to train their systems.

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

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

DeepSeek claims that it developed its innovation for a portion of the rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's existing dominance of the sector.

As for me and a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I actually want a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weak point in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But offered how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm uncertain the length of time I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and modifying abilities, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in international technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.