申論題

二、 Summary and cloze test design 20%
Please summarize the following passage in 200-250 words. Then design five multiple-choice cloze questions for 11th graders. Each question must
include four alternatives, ( A ), ( B ), ( C ), and ( D ), with one of them being the best answer. Answers to each question must be provided.
In an age where artificial intelligence can conjure entire visual landscapes from a few lines of text or a single image, the aesthetic allure of Ghiblistyle art has not escaped the grasp of machine learning. Inspired by the signature look of Studio Ghibli, characterized by whimsical detail, hand-drawn textures, and emotionally resonant color palettes, AI models can now transform ordinary photographs into dreamy, painterly renderings that evoke the work of Hayao Miyazaki and his studio's legendary animators. This development has captivated social media users and hobbyists, who eagerly share AIgenerated portraits of themselves rendered in this style. Yet behind the enchantment lies a contentious question: to what extent are these AI creations derivative, and do they infringe upon the intellectual property of human artists, particularly those at Studio Ghibli who never consented to their style being harvested and replicated?
The controversy hinges on a complex intersection of creativity, technology, and legal frameworks ill-equipped to govern such rapid evolution. Unlike traditional tools, generative AI systems are trained on massive datasets scraped indiscriminately from the internet, which often include copyrighted artworks without the original creators’ permission. As a result, the AI “learns” not merely from public domain material but from the signature techniques, compositional patterns, and visual motifs of living artists. In the case of Ghibli-style art generators, these systems mimic not only the formal elements of the studio’s animation but also its deeply personal ethos and cultural specificity. Critics argue that such mimicry is not mere flattery but appropriation, which, in other words, automated plagiarism masquerading as innovation. Studio Ghibli itself, known for its staunch preservation of hand-drawn artistry, has not publicly endorsed any AI rendering tools, raising ethical questions about the unauthorized replication of their brand.
The implications for contemporary artists are profound. In a creative landscape increasingly influenced by AI-generated outputs, human illustrators face the disquieting prospect of being overshadowed, or even replaced, by machines that replicate their style with uncanny precision and no legal or financial accountability. Moreover, when an artist’s stylistic fingerprint becomes a training source for AI without attribution, consent, or compensation, the act borders on digital exploitation. While copyright law traditionally protects specific expressions of ideas, such as finished illustrations, it does not yet safeguard style, which remains a more elusive and unprotected attribute. This legal gap has sparked calls from creators, lawyers, and ethicists to redefine intellectual property rights in ways that reflect the complexities of the AI era. Without meaningful reform, artists may find themselves in the paradoxical position of being both the muses and the casualties of algorithmic creativity.
To address these tensions, a multi-pronged approach is necessary. First, transparency in AI training data must be enforced: artists should know whether their work has been used to train models, and they should be given the option to opt out. Second, new legal protections should be developed that recognize artistic style as a form of intellectual property—not to monopolize aesthetics, but to ensure fair use, respect, and compensation. Third, platforms hosting AI-generated content should implement clearer labeling systems that differentiate between human-made and machine-made art, preserving the value and integrity of traditional craftsmanship. Finally, educational initiatives are essential to cultivating digital literacy, so that users understand both the technological marvel and the ethical cost of AI-generated aesthetics. The transformation of images into Ghibli-style fantasy may dazzle the eye, but behind the shimmer lies a critical question for our time: how do we honor the humanity of art in an age where machines can mimic it so well?