For Christmas I got a fascinating gift from a good friend - my very own "best-selling" book.
"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (fantastic title) bears my name and my photo on its cover, and it has radiant evaluations.
Yet it was entirely composed by AI, with a few basic prompts about me supplied by my pal Janet.
It's a fascinating 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 may have surpassed Janet's prompts in collating 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 mystical, repetitive hallucination in the type of my feline (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on nearly every page - some more random than others.
There are dozens of business online offering AI-book writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.
When I contacted the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually offered around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, because rotating from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The firm utilizes its own AI tools to generate them, based upon an open source large language design.
I'm not asking you to purchase my book. Actually you can't - only Janet, who developed it, can order any additional copies.
There is currently no barrier to anyone creating one in any person's name, consisting of stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and joy".
Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is planned as a "personalised gag present", and the books do not get offered even more.
He wishes to broaden his range, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and bphomesteading.com perhaps offering an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - selling AI-generated products to human clients.
It's also a bit frightening if, 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 simply like me.
Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have actually expressed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then produce comparable material based upon it.
"We ought to be clear, when we are speaking about data here, we actually mean human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to respect creators' rights.
"This is books, this is articles, this is pictures. It's artworks. 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 featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms since it was not their work and they had actually not consented to 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 wildly popular.
"I do not believe the use of generative AI for imaginative purposes need to be banned, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without approval need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really powerful however let's develop it morally and fairly."
OpenAI states Chinese competitors utilizing its work for their AI apps
DeepSeek: bphomesteading.com 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 chosen to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have actually chosen to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.
The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would enable AI designers to use developers' content on the internet to help develop their designs, 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, healthcare 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 livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.
Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also strongly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.
"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and an entire 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 one of its finest carrying out industries on the vague promise of development."
A federal government spokesperson stated: "No relocation will be made up until we are definitely positive we have a practical plan that delivers each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to help them accredit their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for best holders from AI developers."
Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library including public information from a large range of sources will likewise 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 return to the presidency.
In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to improve the safety of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector needed 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, forum.pinoo.com.tr but he is said to want the AI sector to face less guideline.
This comes as a number of lawsuits versus AI companies, and especially against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been secured 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 internet without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of aspects which can constitute fair use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it collects training data and whether it ought to be paying for it.
If this wasn't all sufficient to contemplate, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past 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 innovation for a fraction of the rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.
When it comes to me and classifieds.ocala-news.com 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 current weakness in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It is full of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather difficult to check out in parts because it's so long-winded.
But given how rapidly the tech is evolving, I'm unsure for how long I can stay confident that my substantially slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.
Outside the UK? Register here.