For Christmas I received an interesting gift from a buddy - my really own "best-selling" book.
"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (terrific title) bears my name and my picture on its cover, and it has glowing reviews.
Yet it was totally written by AI, with a few basic prompts about me supplied by my pal Janet.
It's an interesting read, and uproarious in parts. But it also meanders quite a lot, and is someplace in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.
It mimics my chatty style of writing, however it's also a bit repeated, and really verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's prompts in looking at information about me.
Several sentences begin "as a leading innovation journalist ..." - cringe - which could have been scraped from an online bio.
There's likewise a strange, repetitive hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no family pets). And collegetalks.site 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 contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, given that rotating from compiling 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 produce them, based upon an open source big language design.
I'm not asking you to purchase my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, who produced it, can buy any additional copies.
There is currently no barrier to anybody creating one in any person's name, consisting of celebrities - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and created "entirely to bring humour and pleasure".
Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the product is meant as a "personalised gag gift", and the books do not get offered further.
He wants to widen his variety, producing different categories such as sci-fi, and possibly using an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human clients.
It's likewise a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it probably took less than a minute to generate, and it does, certainly 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 produce comparable content based upon it.
"We ought to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we in fact imply human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to respect creators' rights.
"This is books, this is short articles, this is pictures. It's works of art. It's records ... The whole 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 because it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to choose it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.
"I do not think making use of generative AI for innovative purposes must be prohibited, however I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without consent need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really effective but let's build it ethically and fairly."
OpenAI says Chinese competitors utilizing its work for pipewiki.org 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 - including the BBC - have actually selected to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have actually chosen to team up - 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 allow AI developers to utilize creators' content on the internet to help establish their models, unless the rights holders pull out.
Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".
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 changing copyright law and destroying the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.
Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is likewise highly against eliminating copyright law for AI.
"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a lot of delight," 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 industries on the vague pledge of growth."
A federal government representative stated: "No move will be made up until we are definitely confident we have a useful strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for best holders to help them license their content, access to top quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI designers."
Under the UK government's new AI plan, a national information library consisting of public data from a wide variety of sources will likewise be made available to AI researchers.
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 intended to improve the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the workings of their systems with the US government before they are released.
But this has actually now been reversed 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 guideline.
This comes as a variety of claims versus AI companies, and particularly against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everyone from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and freechat.mytakeonit.org even a comic.
They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the web without their permission, parentingliteracy.com and utilized it to train their systems.
The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can constitute reasonable usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it gathers training information and whether it must be spending for it.
If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It became the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.
DeepSeek claims that it established its technology for a portion of the cost of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current dominance of the sector.
As for me and a career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and users.atw.hu it can be quite tough to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.
But provided how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm not sure for how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and editing skills, are much better.
Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in global technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.
Outside the UK? Sign up here.
