Social media is currently inundated by AI-generated images (specifically Chat GPT’s newest paid version, which is now free to use by all) uploaded by users to make it in the style of Studio Ghibli, the animation house from which legendary works by the Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki have emerged (HT News Desk, 2025). The prompt to be used is simple enough- ‘Show me in Studio Ghibli style’. But what does it mean to show a snapshot of material life in a specific animated ‘art style?’ Specifically, what does it mean to mimic art using AI software?
Needless to say, while many netizens have taken to the #ghibli trend like fish to water (AI-generated images of the 9/11 attack and the Babri Masjid demolition in a so-called “stunning, dreamlike” artistic aesthetic), others have expressed serious reservations about the cheap mimicry of Miyazaki’s iconic animations within a larger sense of dread about the loss of what is human about artistic creations (NDTV News Desk, 2025). From claims of plagiarism, contributions of AI to the existing crisis of artists’ jobs and craft worldwide, to concerns of environmental destruction (a significant amount of energy and water is used up even in the most basic AI operations) for what will most likely end up being a fleeting trend, criticisms are many. We can write a trend like this off as fun, but mimesis in this sense is not just an entertaining attempt at making something ‘like’ something else- it seems common sense that ChatGPT’s (current) Ghibli enactments cannot pass human discernment as the real thing (yet). But AI is developing by the day, and in the words of Michael Taussig, “the wonder of mimesis lies in the copy drawing on the character and power of the original, to the point whereby the representation may even assume that character and that power” (Taussig, 1993, p. xiii).
From a personal viewpoint- and fully acknowledging my interests as someone whose career depends not just on academic research but also on writing style- I agree with many of these criticisms and further add to them. It is a popular belief that technology is inherently value-free and that its character ultimately depends upon the user and their application- good or bad. So, the same facial recognition technology that seems benign in allowing you to unlock your phone becomes a tool of deep surveillance and control over dissenters in the hands of powerful states, even in the most outwardly democratic nations. However, while application matters, we cannot set the technology apart from the historical and politico-economic conditions that determine its origins and development. Big dam engineering and industrial technologies, for instance, found their dominance in the Indian developmental landscape due to the high-modernist, industrializing agenda sought by the post-colonial state. Things do not just simply come to be, there is always a context, definitely not an apolitical one. The growing popularity of AI in everyday tasks must be seen in a context where economies lie in crisis, degrees matter less and less, and an enormous amount of unremunerated labour seems to go into applying to increasingly specialised and niche job roles. As unemployment rates rise with economic tensions, increased competition for available job opportunities has an impact on the relative profits of one’s educational qualifications as “institutionalised cultural capital” can fetch one in the employment arena (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). As pointed out by Bourdieu, the material and symbolic profits of academic qualifications depend on their scarcity- and as the reach of tertiary education expands in a context with no proportionate rise in job profiles, one is caught in a constant race to upskill in some form and gain an advantage over other job seekers (Bourdieu, 1986). In sum, one is reduced to spending increasing amounts of time and labour applying to hundreds of jobs (or cold mailing), upskilling and upgrading one’s profile in the hopes of a single positive response. In light of the magnitude of tasks involved in applications themselves, AI seems like a handy tool to shape the hundreds of customised cover letters, for instance, that one may need to write.
We may make fun of the many errors and citations of non-existent sources AI tools like ChatGPT do, but the truth is, there is a certain dependency- and it is associated with deeper troubles- that are created as we continue employing such ‘tools.’ For instance, the impact of the fabrication of facts by the AI tool- which, as students, we might laugh off in a sense of our human superiority over computer intelligence, even as we use it to paraphrase our next assignment- is already being felt in fabricated legal case citations in court case research, as highlighted by Justice B.R. Gavai, next-in-line to be CJI (Rajagopal, 2025). To put it in perspective, imagine going to jail over a crime you did not commit because the prosecutor’s AI-generated legal research found you guilty on the basis of non-existent legal precedents, the presiding judge none the wiser.
At this point, I do not wish to make light of the environmental implications of using AI tools for tasks like writing a cover letter or framing a short e-mail. However, much more concerningly, we forget that when we use AI platforms for research or information generation of any sort, we also participate in its training. This might seem alright on the face of it- it might even appear as a democratization of participation in improving scientific innovations. However, apart from the fact that OpenAI trains its tools using whatever is available on the internet, including copyrighted material, without the consent of the creators, we also become ‘data’ for large platforms in many ways. If social media platforms do trade in our attention spans using short-format features and ads, indiscriminate use of AI tools capitalizes on our time, our human capacity to point out its operational errors and mental labour, and our increasing dependence on their software. In short, the labour of framing an email ourselves does not vanish, it is displaced towards training the software of large corporations unknowingly and without anything constructive in return in the long run. There is a reason why most AI platforms- from ChatGPT to C.AI- have paid “ultra” or “plus” versions, enticing us with upgraded features touted to make our lives easier and provide us with ‘fun’ ways of using algorithms. As we pay these platforms to access these additional features, we end up paying these platforms for accessing upgrades made possible by the labour appropriated by the AI platforms from us to train the algorithm in the process of our use.
But as those on the privileged side of the digital divide, we need to ask ourselves just how easy, how ‘fun’ we want our lives to really be, and what this ease and this entertainment really means and what it may result in. At the risk of sounding bleak, I leave the reader with some open-ended food for thought- what is a privilege, if not standing up for other people whose craft and livelihoods are under threat from distorted, superficial AI imitations of human creativity birthed by life’s trials, tribulations, deep contemplation and concern for existential issues? What is human labour if not being able to create for oneself using human effort and thought that survives as a palimpsest of all the stories lived before us? What does it mean to mimic something so intrinsically human, like art, in such intensely non-human ways?
REFERENCES:
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research in Sociology of Education (pp. 241-58). Greenwood Press.
HT News Desk. (2025, April 1). Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs from April 2. What’s in store for India, other countries? Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/donald-trump-reciprocal-tariffs-april-2-liberation-day-what-in-store-for-india-other-countries-101743468863718.html
NDTV News Desk. (2025, March 28). How to create Studio Ghibli-Style AI images on ChatGPT for free. NDTV. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-to-create-studio-ghibli-style-ai-images-on-chatgpt-for-free-8029848
Rajagopal, K. (2025, March 10). Artificial Intelligence in judiciary must not replace human mind and judgment: Justice Gavai. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/artificial-intelligence-in-judiciary-must-not-replace-human-mind-and-judgment-justice-gavai/article69313653.ece
Taussig, M. (1993). Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. Routledge.
_________________________
Shreya Mukherjee is currently pursuing her Masters in Sociology from the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi.
TheDaak review 
Leave a comment