Ghibli without the Heart: Can AI Have A Little Soul?

Almost overnight, ChatGPT’s latest update, GPT-4o, allegedly “killed” marketing. With drastically improved image generation, everybody seems to be lamenting the uniqueness of “aesthetic”. If any concept is easily reproducible, or identity is easily duplicated, brands have to think beyond superficial design decisions and create adaptable, versatile strategies. Maybe the hardest truth is that the product has to be better, since selling people on a look or a vibe isn’t enough anymore.

The claim that “aesthetics” don’t matter anymore might be a little dramatic, but it’s not without some truth to it. But this doesn’t mean the landscape is going to be flooded with actual creative people. AI “prompters” with no cohesive and clear message are still at risk of drowning in an oversaturated landscape of AI image generators.

The Ghibli Outrage

Recently, everybody from the White House to your uncle’s Raya photos used the Ghibli filter from GPT-4o. It brought about the anger of many Ghibli fans, who started citing a 2016 video of Hayao Miyazaki deploring the idea of AI in a creative meeting.

(Source Link)

Among the discourse is the accusation of theft, since generative AI is dependent on Large Language Models. But as long as people like Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI can continually fear-monger and say that the US will lose the AI war if it doesn’t have “fair use” access to copyrighted materials, there’s no winning this legal debacle. It’s time to understand how we can live in a world where entire aesthetic palettes can be recreated in less than 5 minutes - and how you can stand out amongst the ruckus.

One way to embrace the chaos is to Ghibli-fy the stock market crash. But that’s neither here nor there. (Source Link)

What is AI?

Now, hold on, AI (Artificial Intelligence) has been in the general consciousness pretty consistently ever since ChatGPT broke into the scene and people started making full TikTok drama videos featuring sad cats using DALL-E, but what exactly is AI?

AI has been present in our lives far longer than you would expect. Technology made to imitate human intelligence isn’t new. Siri and Alexa are a type of artificial intelligence too. When you hear AI nowadays used to create content - whether it’s text, image or video, simulations, or coding - it usually refers to generative AI, which describes algorithms that can be used to create new content.

The machine learning technology found in current generative AI allows creation on demand, rather than simply identifying and categorising as was used in previous predictive models. And with a large sample group to access (i.e, the Internet), generative AI can create an impressive level of complexity, although not always accurate, comprehensive and when it comes to visuals, can still operate within the realm of uncanny valley.

Even within marketing, generative AI has a lot of applications, from data analysis to automating CRMs. Today our focus is the creative side, specifically how creativity and AI do not have to be at odds with each other.

How Does One Inject Soul into AI?

Among all the controversies of different parties using AI “wrong”, or producing cheap-looking, uninspired output, it’s time we talk about what the actual criteria is for “good AI”. Yes, there is such a thing. There are case studies where AI’s function as a tool is optimised more than its mediocre ability to act as a substitute for creativity. When even established companies with a marketing budget are at risk of producing less-than-quality content, it’s time to dissect ways we can make things just a little bit better.

First, we need to abandon the idea that AI will ever truly create. AI doesn’t daydream, it doesn’t feel longing, it doesn’t get a lump in its throat watching the ending of Whisper of the Heart. What it does is remix, repackage, and repeat. And that’s not inherently bad—especially when guided by someone who can do all those things. Like music, you can sample the best song in the world, and still make it look awkward in your track.

The real danger isn't AI itself—it's lazy prompting. It's handing the keys to a robot and hoping it drives like a poet. The most effective use of AI, especially in the creative field, is when it's treated as a collaborator, not a creator. A co-writer. An intern with a processor instead of a pulse.

No, artists, don’t die, we still need you

To illustrate this, let’s compare two brands: one that took a swing and missed, and one that approached AI like a lens—not a shortcut.

Case Study: Coca-Cola’s Christmas AI Ad — Style Without Substance

Watch here

In late 2023, Coca-Cola launched a Christmas campaign produced largely with generative AI. On paper, it had all the ingredients: festive imagery, a magical setting, the iconic Coke trucks rumbling into the North Pole. But the final product, while glossy, was curiously empty. It hit the beats of a Christmas ad without saying anything new—or feeling anything real.

The backlash was swift. Many audiences pointed out that the ad lacked emotional resolution, warmth, or a compelling narrative arc. It looked like a Christmas ad. But it didn’t feel like one. Even Coca-Cola’s own CEO admitted that, moving forward, the brand still wanted to “make ads with people.” Because even when AI gets the execution right, it can’t replicate humanity’s ability to infuse meaning.

Above is a screenshot from the Christmas ad. Calling it “Real Magic” when it’s all just AI prompts - (prompt was probably make a Polar Express rip-off) - is really funny though, ngl

Case Study: Astro’s AI Social Campaign — Augment, Don’t Replace

Contrast that with Astro’s AI-powered campaign, which introduced digital versions of beloved local actors to respond to fans online. Rather than pretending AI was the creative voice, the campaign leaned into the novelty of AI while keeping its heart human. Actors offered their own messages of support alongside their AI-generated likenesses. The tech was a tool to extend reach and delight, not a replacement for authenticity.

It struck a balance—AI wasn’t there to speak for the brand. It helped the brand speak more—with the same tone, warmth, and cultural fluency that audiences expected. The results? Increased engagement, buzz, and minimal backlash. It was an experiment in scale, not a sacrifice of soul.

(Source Link)

So, What Now?

The future isn’t AI vs. humans. It’s AI with humans. The brands that win won’t be the ones pumping out 500 Ghibli-style images—but the ones that understand why Ghibli moves people in the first place.

This whole debacle? A reminder that aesthetics aren’t enough. Not when anyone can prompt their way to “pretty.” What cuts through now is clarity, resonance, and intention.

So ask yourself:

• What are you really trying to say?
• Does AI help say it better—or just louder?

The Ghibli outrage wasn’t just about style theft. It was about losing the soul behind the style. If we treat AI as a tool—not a shortcut—we might just keep that soul intact.

More reads :