Ghibli, in truth, is an art form which:

Comprehension:

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The internet is abuzz, GPUs (Graphic Processing Units) have gone into a meltdown churning out AI-generated art mimicking Studio Ghibli’s iconic style. What started as a tech experiment has spiraled into a heated and polarising discussion about creativity, ethics and the planet’s well-being. We tend to react differently when we watch a cover or tribute band playing classic hits or a dancer copying a master’s moves. There’s an appreciation for the skill and effort involved, an acknowledgment that even mimicking greatness takes talent and time. But when AI churned out Ghibli-style images in microseconds, the effect was devastating. And polarising. Fans of Hayao Miyazaki, Ghibli’s legendary animator, felt unease over how his meticulously hand-drawn frames, filled with humanism and beauty, were now trivialised by soulless replicas. Many argued it wasn’t just about copying his signature style - it was about stripping away the context and effort. The debate has revealed our collective discomfort with tech replacing human struggle, even as some joined the trend, fascinated by AI’s capabilities. Artists have always copied the masters - students sketching da Vinci or musicians covering tunes of The Beatles. It’s how skills are honed. But AI flips this on its head, replacing human effort with tech. The debate then shouldn’t just be about plagiarism - style has been borrowed forever, from Picasso to modern fashion. In Bollywood, Anil Kapoor fought to protect his personality traits from misuse - a legit concern over how even a seemingly harmless mimicry used in the wrong context can be damaging for an actor or any creative person. What truly matters is context: using Ghibli’s style for contentious or trivial images feels wrong because it lacks the soul Miyazaki poured into every frame.