desoesterbergh

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

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

Yet it was totally composed by AI, with a couple of simple prompts about me provided by my buddy Janet.

It's an intriguing read, and very amusing 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 design of composing, however it's likewise a bit repeated, and really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in collecting data about me.

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

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

There are lots of companies online offering AI -book writing 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, mainly in the US, considering that pivoting from putting together AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The company utilizes its own AI tools to produce them, based upon an open source large language design.

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

There is currently no barrier to anyone developing one in anyone's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the company, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is planned as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get offered even more.

He wants to broaden his variety, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human clients.

It's likewise a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it most likely took less than a minute to generate, forum.altaycoins.com and it does, certainly in some parts, sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have expressed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then produce comparable content based upon it.

"We must be clear, when we are discussing information here, we really mean human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is images. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to discover how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune 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 trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were phony, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for creative purposes should be banned, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without permission should be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective but let's build it fairly and fairly."

OpenAI states Chinese competitors using 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 - including the BBC - have selected to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to use creators' content on the web to help develop their models, unless the rights holders opt out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

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

"All of these things work without going and changing 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 highly versus eliminating copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and an entire lot of happiness," states the Baroness, who is likewise an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

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

A federal government spokesperson said: "No relocation will be made until we are definitely positive we have a useful plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to help them license their material, access to high-quality product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI plan, a nationwide information library including public information from a vast array of sources will also be offered to AI researchers.

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

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that aimed to boost the safety of AI with, amongst other things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the workings of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is stated to desire the AI sector to deal with less policy.

This comes as a variety of lawsuits against AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been gotten by everyone from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comedian.

They claim that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the internet without their approval, akropolistravel.com 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 number of elements which can constitute fair usage - 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 spending for it.

If this wasn't all enough to consider, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being the many downloaded totally free app on Apple's US App Store.

that it established its technology for a fraction of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It is complete of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be rather tough to check out in parts because it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm not exactly sure the length of time I can stay confident that my substantially slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest advancements in international innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.