robotsquare

For Christmas I got an intriguing present from a 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 glowing reviews.

Yet it was totally written by AI, with a couple of simple triggers 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 imitates my chatty design of composing, however it's likewise a bit recurring, and very verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in about me.

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

There's also a strange, repetitive hallucination in the type of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on almost every page - some more random than others.

There are lots 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 actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, considering that pivoting 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 produce them, based upon an open source big language design.

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 anyone developing one in anybody's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "solely to bring humour and delight".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the company, but Mr Mashiach worries that the product is planned as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get sold further.

He wishes to widen his range, creating various categories such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI -generated items to human clients.

It's likewise a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound simply like me.

Musicians, prawattasao.awardspace.info authors, artists and stars worldwide have actually revealed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then churn out comparable material based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing information here, we really suggest human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is photos. It's masterpieces. 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 song including AI -generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and opentx.cz The Weeknd went viral on social networks 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 developer attempting to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think using generative AI for creative purposes should be prohibited, but I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without authorization should be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really powerful but let's build it ethically 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 industry and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have selected to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have chosen to team up - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to utilize developers' content on the internet to help develop their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "madness".

He points out that AI can make advances in areas like defence, health care 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 nation'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 creators, 2.4 million jobs and an entire lot 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 performing markets on the unclear promise of development."

A government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made up until we are definitely positive we have a useful strategy that provides each of our goals: increased control for best holders to help them certify their material, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI designers."

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

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

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 deal with less policy.

This comes as a number of suits versus AI firms, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everybody from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They claim that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the web without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of factors which can constitute reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training data and whether it must be paying for it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to ponder, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It became the many downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it established its innovation for a fraction of the cost of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security concerns in the US, oke.zone and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite hard to read in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But offered how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm not exactly sure for how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in worldwide innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.