medsol

For Christmas I got an intriguing gift from a good friend - my really own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a few simple triggers about me provided by my buddy Janet.

It's a fascinating read, and really amusing in parts. But it also meanders quite a lot, and is somewhere in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It mimics my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repeated, and very verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's prompts in looking at information about me.

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

There's likewise a strange, repeated hallucination in the form of my feline (I have no animals). 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 called the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 customised books, generally in the US, considering that 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 uses its own AI tools to generate them, based on an open source large language model.

I'm not asking you to buy my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, mediawiki1334.00web.net who produced it, can purchase any further copies.

There is currently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, consisting of stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book includes a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is fictional, developed by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

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

He wants to broaden his range, producing various categories such as sci-fi, and maybe using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI -generated goods to human clients.

It's likewise a bit scary if, like me, you write for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to generate, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound much like me.

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

"We must be clear, when we are discussing data here, we in fact suggest human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is pictures. 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 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 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 extremely popular.

"I do not think the use of generative AI for creative purposes need to be banned, 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 adds. "AI can be very powerful however let's build it morally and fairly."

OpenAI states 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 - including the BBC - have actually picked to block AI designers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have decided to work together - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use developers' material on the web to help develop their models, unless the rights holders choose out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He points out that AI can make advances in areas 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 ruining the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is likewise highly versus removing copyright law for AI.

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

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

A federal government spokesperson stated: "No relocation will be made up until we are definitely confident we have a practical strategy that provides each of our goals: increased control for right holders to help them license their content, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for ideal holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library including public data from a wide variety of sources will likewise be provided to AI researchers.

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

But this has actually now been repealed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, but he is said to want the AI sector to face less regulation.

This comes as a number of claims against AI firms, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been secured by everybody from the New york city 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 web without their authorization, and utilized 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 factors which can make up fair use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it ought 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 became one of the most downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it established its technology for a portion of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a as an author, I think that at the minute, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It has plenty of mistakes and hallucinations, historydb.date and it can be rather tough to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But given how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm uncertain the length of time I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and editing skills, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest developments in global technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Register here.