neurocare-onlus

For Christmas I received an interesting gift from a buddy - my very own "best-selling" book.

"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (great title) bears my name and my image on its cover, and it has glowing evaluations.

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a few basic prompts about me provided by my friend Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's triggers in collating data about me.

Several sentences start "as a leading technology journalist ..." - cringe - which might have been scraped from an online bio.

There's also a strange, repeated 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 lots 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 actually sold around 150,000 customised books, primarily in the US, because rotating from assembling AI -generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The company utilizes its own AI tools to create them, larsaluarna.se based on an open source large language model.

I'm not asking you to purchase my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, who developed it, can order any further copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody developing one in any person's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, but Mr Mashiach worries that the item is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold even more.

He wants to widen his range, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of consumer AI - offering AI -generated products to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it probably took less than a minute to produce, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound just like me.

Musicians, wiki.tld-wars.space authors, artists and actors worldwide have actually expressed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce similar material based upon it.

"We ought to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we really mean human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is photos. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to discover 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 since it was not their work and they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for imaginative functions ought to be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on individuals's work without consent ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very powerful however let's construct it ethically and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese rivals using 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 selected to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have actually decided to collaborate - 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 designers to use developers' material on the internet to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders opt 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 altering copyright law and messing up the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also highly against getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries are wealth developers, 2.4 million jobs and a great deal of joy," states the Baroness, who is also a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening among its best carrying out industries on the unclear guarantee of development."

A government spokesperson said: "No relocation will be made till we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to assist them accredit their material, access to high-quality product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's new AI plan, a national information library consisting of public information from a wide range of sources will also be provided to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal guidelines 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 aimed to improve the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

But this has now been reversed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, however he is said to want the AI sector to deal with less regulation.

This comes as a number of suits versus AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everyone from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They claim that the AI firms broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their approval, and utilized it to train their systems.

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

If this wasn't all adequate to consider, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being one of the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its innovation for a portion of the price 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 profession as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I actually desire 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 tasks. It has plenty of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather difficult to read in parts since it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm not sure how long I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and editing skills, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded to follow the biggest advancements in worldwide technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Register here.