How an AI-written Book Shows why the Tech 'Terrifies' Creatives

For Christmas I got an intriguing gift from a friend - my very own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a couple of easy prompts about me supplied by my buddy Janet.

It's an interesting read, and very funny in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It simulates my chatty style of composing, but it's likewise a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's triggers in collecting data about me.

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

There's likewise a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the type 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 writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, considering that 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 uses its own AI tools to create them, 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 purchase any more copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody producing 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 mentioning that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and delight".

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

He wishes to broaden his range, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and maybe using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human consumers.

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

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

"We should be clear, when we are talking about data here, we in fact imply human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to respect creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is photos. It's artworks. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to find out how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a song featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media 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 attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for creative functions must be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without consent need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really effective however let's construct it fairly 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 market and dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually selected to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have decided to team up - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for example.

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

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He mentions 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 against eliminating copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks 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 federal government is undermining one of its finest performing markets on the vague promise of development."

A federal government spokesperson said: "No move will be made till we are definitely positive we have a useful plan that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to assist them accredit their material, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI designers."

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

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 security of AI with, systemcheck-wiki.de amongst other things, companies in the sector needed to share information of the workings of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

But this has actually now been reversed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, but he is stated to want the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

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

They declare that the AI firms broke the law when they took their content from the web without their approval, and e.bike.free.fr 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 aspects which can constitute fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training data and whether it ought to be spending for it.

If this wasn't all enough to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the previous week. It became the many downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it established its innovation for a fraction of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's existing dominance of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for macphersonwiki.mywikis.wiki larger jobs. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to check out in parts since it's so long-winded.

But offered how quickly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain how long I can remain positive that my considerably slower human writing and editing abilities, are much better.