GitLab

For Christmas I got an interesting present 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 entirely written by AI, with a couple of easy prompts about me provided by my buddy Janet.

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

It mimics my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's prompts in collecting information about me.

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

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

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

When I called the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold 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 costs ₤ 26. The firm utilizes 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 - only Janet, who produced it, can purchase any further copies.

There is currently no barrier to anybody developing one in any person's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent content. Each book contains a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, created by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the product is meant as a "customised gag present", complexityzoo.net and the books do not get sold further.

He intends to widen his range, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human consumers.

It's likewise a bit frightening if, like me, you write for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to produce, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound much like me.

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

"We need to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we really mean human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is images. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to find out how to do something and after that do more like that."

In 2023 a song including 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 granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator oke.zone attempting to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, forum.pinoo.com.tr it was still hugely popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for imaginative functions need to be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without permission ought to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective however let's develop it morally and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals utilizing 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 picked to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have 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 designers to use creators' content on the web to assist develop their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He explains that AI can make advances in locations like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, journalists and artists.

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and destroying the incomes of the country'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 jobs and an entire lot of pleasure," states the Baroness, who is also a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is undermining among its best carrying out markets on the vague pledge of growth."

A government representative stated: "No relocation will be made till we are definitely confident we have a practical strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to assist them certify their content, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for best holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's brand-new AI strategy, a nationwide data library including public data from a large range of sources will also be made offered to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules 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 safety of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share details of the functions of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.

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

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

They claim 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 business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can make up fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it need to be spending for it.

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

DeepSeek claims that it developed its technology 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 career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It is complete of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to check out in parts because it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm unsure how long I can stay confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in international innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the globe.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.