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

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

Yet it was totally written by AI, with a few easy triggers 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 design of composing, but it's also a bit recurring, and extremely verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's triggers in collating data about me.

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

There's also a strange, repetitive hallucination in the kind of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on practically every page - some more random than others.

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

When I got in touch with the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, given that rotating from putting together 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 generate them, based on an open source large language design.

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody producing one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is imaginary, produced by AI, wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de and designed "solely to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is planned as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to broaden his variety, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and oke.zone maybe using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, scientific-programs.science like me, you write for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound much like me.

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

"We ought to be clear, when we are speaking about data here, we really indicate human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to regard 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 featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms due to the fact that it was not their work and they had actually 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 extremely popular.

"I do not think the use of generative AI for innovative functions need to be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without approval must be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective however let's build 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 industry and dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have picked to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training . Others have chosen to team up - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use developers' material on the internet to help develop their designs, unless the rights holders decide 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 livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and a whole lot of joy," says the Baroness, who is also a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

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

A federal government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made up until we are absolutely positive we have a useful strategy that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to assist them accredit their content, access to premium material 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 nationwide data library including public data from a large range of sources will also be made offered to AI scientists.

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

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that aimed to boost the safety of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector required to share information of the functions of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has actually now been reversed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is said to want the AI sector to face less policy.

This comes as a variety of lawsuits versus AI firms, and particularly against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been secured by everyone 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 material from the web without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

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

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

DeepSeek claims that it established its technology for a fraction of the rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's existing dominance of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I actually desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weakness in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It has plenty of mistakes and hallucinations, and higgledy-piggledy.xyz it can be quite challenging to read in parts since it's so long-winded.

But provided how quickly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain for how long I can remain confident that my substantially slower human writing and editing skills, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents all over the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.