For Christmas I got an interesting gift from a pal - my very own "best-selling" book.
"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (great title) bears my name and my picture on its cover, and it has glowing evaluations.
Yet it was entirely composed by AI, with a couple of simple prompts about me provided by my buddy Janet.
It's an intriguing read, classifieds.ocala-news.com and uproarious in parts. But it likewise meanders quite a lot, and is somewhere between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.
It imitates my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repeated, and very verbose. It might have exceeded 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 also a strange, 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 business online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.
When I contacted the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, considering that rotating from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.
A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The company uses its own AI tools to generate 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 buy any additional copies.
There is presently no barrier to anybody creating one in anyone's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "solely to bring humour and pleasure".
Legally, the copyright comes from the company, however Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is meant as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get sold further.
He intends to expand his range, generating different genres such as sci-fi, and possibly offering an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of consumer AI - selling AI-generated items to human customers.
It's also a bit scary if, like me, you compose for users.atw.hu a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to generate, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound much like me.
Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have expressed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then churn out similar material based upon it.
"We ought to be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we in fact suggest human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to regard creators' rights.
"This is books, this is short articles, this is pictures. It's artworks. 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 vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms since it was not their work and they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's developer attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, it was still hugely popular.
"I do not believe making use of generative AI for innovative purposes ought to be prohibited, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without consent must be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective but let's build it morally and relatively."
OpenAI says Chinese competitors utilizing its work for 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 - consisting of the BBC - have chosen to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have chosen to work together - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for example.
The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to utilize developers' material on the internet to assist 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 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 ruining the incomes of the country's creatives," he argues.
Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is also strongly versus eliminating copyright law for AI.
"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks and a lot of pleasure," states the Baroness, who is likewise a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.
"The government is undermining among its best performing markets on the vague pledge of development."
A government spokesperson stated: "No relocation will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a useful strategy that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them accredit their material, access to premium product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for best holders from AI designers."
Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a national information library containing public data from a vast array of sources will also be provided to AI scientists.
In the US the future of federal rules to control AI is now up in the air following President Trump's return to the presidency.
In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to enhance the security of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector needed to share information of the operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.
But this has actually now been rescinded by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is said to desire the AI sector to face less guideline.
This comes as a number of claims versus AI firms, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everyone from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.
They declare that the AI firms broke the law when they took their material from the web without their approval, and used it to train their systems.
The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of aspects which can constitute reasonable usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it collects training information and whether it need to be spending for it.
If this wasn't all sufficient to contemplate, Chinese AI firm 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 declares that it developed its technology for a fraction of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, ratemywifey.com and threatens American's existing dominance of the sector.
As for me and a career as an author, I believe 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 present weak point in generative AI tools for larger projects. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to read in parts due to the fact that it's so long-winded.
But provided how quickly the tech is developing, I'm unsure how long I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.
Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in global technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the globe.
Outside the UK? Register here.
