AI and background images

tldr: my main qualm is that ai would never fit in with this site. it does not belong on this site and should never belong on this site. while I already have things to say about the use of ai graphics/profile pictures, i think it is even worse when this comes from an official administrative decision. I implore you to rethink this decision. I know you've already made the images, so the damage has already been done in some regards, but there is still time and opportunity for you to stop further damage. this is not where you would want to go; please rethink this choice.

Hi, I know this conversation has kind of passed but I really hope you read this, Zach.

I want to thank you for all of the work you have done with site. It has really come a long way from what you first had in mind, I am sure, and it has grown into something that has really made an impact on a lot of people.

As stated previously in this thread, although I did not get a chance to expand on it, I do not support the idea of using AI to generate images, especially on a site where human creativity should be held to the highest regard.

I acknowledge all of the reasons people have provided for why AI is detrimental, and I fully agree with them. But I am sure you've also heard them before, and perhaps chooses to turn a blind eye to them or use AI despite this. I am not trying to put you in the wrong for this; I understand the instant gratification of gen ai, and how you might feel like it will fit your vision perfectly because you are the one "creating" it (sending in a prompt).

But the use of gen ai is a trap. Because I will tell you something bluntly, Zach, I feel like using gen ai to make your backgrounds will never fit your vision.

Yes, we'll get to see a cool owl, or maybe a part of Hogwarts we've never seen before, but here I quote yourself. I remember distinctly being around when you decided to test adding advertisements to the site. I was a little saddened, so needless to say I was absolutely relieved when you said you would not include them. And so, directly from your post on ads:

Most importantly, I just can’t accept them. They go against everything that, to me, defines the soul of this site: a glimpse of what the Internet was like twenty years ago—spaces created by passionate people, free of ads, privacy issues, and social media, simply bringing together individuals who share the same passions and want to escape the real world for a while.

This is how I feel about this situation, except this time it is about the implementation of gen ai backgrounds. I just can't accept them; it goes against everything this site is supposed to be. Bouncing off your own points: gen ai did not exist 20 years ago, and gen ai, to many of us, would also not be a form of escapism. We hate seeing it already -- it has no soul, no meaning, nothing "human" about it. Don't make us see it here too. This is not only where people come to escape, but also where people come to create.

Because, Zach, I beg the question, what is art if not human made? And to me, and I'm sure I can speak for others here as well, this site is not just a cute little place for me to lose track of time.

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion.

Hio is a really fun space for me, but I don't solely stay on hio because it is fun. To me, hio is also a place of art and literature, and stories that mean something much more than life. And that is the entire point of this no? To create something with a soul. Something that almost breathes on it own, even if our pens still guide the lives they lead.

The argument is that our art is not threatened, because we are not allowing ai in writing. But any use of gen ai in any space that is as creative as ours, I feel like almost a violation of the very meaning our art is supposed to be. Human made and made with passion. And that was exactly what I loved so much about receiving your earlier updates. You always did everything with so much passion, from starting this website when you were thirteen.

Zach, I truly believe you have good intentions going into this. You want this site to be something you've always imagined, to fit the aesthetic that you have chosen. And I totally get that. But I think ai would never fit your aesthetic. I would only fit the most shallow "art style" or perhaps what you thought the hogwarts castle might look like, but it would never have a place in the soul of this site you've always imagined. A place brought together by humans who love what they do, who want to preserve what they do, and who want to be creative and artistic.

Because the shallowest aesthetic is not everything. Perhaps ai can make something a million times faster than any artist, draw with better proportions or directions or styles or any argument you want to have. But still. It is not art, and this site is built upon art.

Genuinely, hio has given me light in unimaginable darkness by giving me art I can hold onto and be a part of, and I thank you for that, and all of my writing partners for making it possible. But the use of ai images, even though no ai writing as been produced, just goes against everything this site is supposed to be for me.

I love this site. It won't be the same if ai images are in use.

I have been hesitant to post here, but I have now gathered my thoughts and hope that an extra voice can make a difference, no matter how small and how poorly worded. Apologies in advance if this sounds overly argumentative or divisive; it is not my intention to attempt to undermine the opinions of others or efforts that have been made, I am simply trying to share my perspective.

First of all, thank you so much to Zach and the admin team for the efforts that all of you have placed into running this site. I really appreciate how much love goes into hio and the continuous work that goes into ensuring users have the optimal experience. I have spent years on this site; it has contributed so much to making my days brighter and bringing me joy when nothing else succeeds. Words cannot express how deeply grateful I am for all of you who pour countless hours into developing hio.

That being said, the amount of time I have spent on site has also brought me to realise that the usage of AI backgrounds would be extremely damaging to the site. I will not reiterate the environmental impacts or the fact that AI takes from artists, though I wholeheartedly agree with these points. I would rather like to focus on how deeply rooted the site lies in creativity and reinforcing what Archer wrote above.

From a broader, site-wide perspective, adopting AI backgrounds would be a dangerous slippery slope to go down, especially in a community that promotes human creation. Having AI backgrounds as a constant would insinuate — even if it is not true — that the site actively accepts the usage of AI in creative settings. This is especially true considering how the background is a crucial part of the site experience, and is about to become even more central with the new navigation system. This acceptance of AI would allow for eventual usage in other areas; today, it may be the background, but what of tomorrow? To have what may appear to some users as active endorsement or usage of gen AI in such a prominent part of the site may bring gen AI to further encroach into writing. Users would become incentivised to use more AI in other aspects in following this official administrative precedent — which, in a creative space, is extremely detrimental. The legitimacy of the site as one of creation would also decline and ultimately what this site represents would change.

Speaking of what the site represents, hio for me from a personal perspective is a space for endless imagination and innovation; it is one of the few places where I feel I can genuinely express myself creatively. Having AI backgrounds would destroy that element of human creation on the site that I grasp onto so dearly. I acknowledge that the backgrounds bring immersiveness. I understand that the background can make a vital part of the experience. Some have argued that AI backgrounds would bring the site a unique branding and a consistency that human-made art cannot replicate. But is using AI generated content really the branding that hio wants to embrace? The concept that it wants to represent? AI is soulless, bland, and creates an amalgamation of computer-made slop that always seems slightly off. A question I always ask myself as somebody passionate about art is: what constitutes art? To my standards, art is something original; art is something created with emotion, passion, and intention. AI generated content is not "art". It does not create any novelties, and it cannot replicate human-made art in any way. If blank backgrounds supposedly detract from the immersiveness and branding of the site, I would argue that gen AI content detracts from that aesthetic even further. For me personally, to stare at an AI background would diminish my experience severely.

Thus, I am against AI backgrounds and would prefer any other alternative. As somebody who has spent almost a third of their life on hio, the creativity and human authenticity that it harbours means so much to me. To see something that I hold so dearly morph into a space utilising something that I so actively detest — even if it is solely in the background — would be heartbreaking.

I would like to again reiterate how much I appreciate all the work that you (Zach) and Lear have put into this site. The immense effort that has been placed into this — not just this specific issue but other issues as well and the site as a whole — is evident. I also do understand the limitations from a legal standpoint, but I sincerely hope that these legal challenges can be navigated with something other than gen AI. And of course, thank you for allowing us to share our opinions in this thread.

I have taken a long time to state my opinion on this matter, but I will in a way that is hopefully not blatantly judgemental or offensive. Apologies for any language and spelling errors or expressions that don’t match my intended tone as I am not a native English speaker.

Once again, I would like to thank the admin team and especially Zach and Lear for wanting to be transparent and giving us a space to converse on a highly important ethical issue that is generative AI. Your work has been astounding and although I was largely disappointed by the images being AI, I’m glad I can state my opinion on this.

The issue:

For the most part, over the past years, I’ve been thoroughly against AI use. Artificial Intelligence can be useful in certain circumstances like trained machine models with a singular intention: to aid humans in a specific task beyond normal human capabilities or enhancing human capabilities in areas where speed, in combination with efficiency and fact checking, is necessary.

When it comes to the presence of background images on site, this is not a valid reason to use AI. It is neither an urgent matter or something that cannot be done by a human. AI is stealing from the creativity and work of artist with have been created over vast amounts of time and have required a lot of passion. This site as a whole is a community that is based on the creativity of writers and artists who want to create a character with their own unique story. We devote time and energy to these characters. Who knows if this machine feeds off the descriptions and images provided by us, on site, to create these backgrounds. Not only players, but administrators and perhaps you the reader as well. Isn’t this depressing?

As Elena and many others have described in their posts, there is a huge environmental impact of AI as well, but I will not focus on it as my research hasn’t been as extensive as that of other members.

I would like to describe an incident that happened to me recently. My team and I had to do a project we were assigned. Now, this was no job project but a quick student research project. Let’s say A and B worked on the presentation itself on Canva and me and C were doing research. B stumbled upon Canva AI after not being able to find a background up to their tastes and loaded one in seconds. Only, it had the text as well. I was against this usage and let it slide in matters pertaining to the template, but when it came to the text, I was extremely disgusted to see both A, B and C learning the AI generated texts by heart while I say and did the research as I was supposed to, with legitimate government sources etc. they could barely elaborate on the part of the presentation they chose besides the points mentioned by AI and when I gave them some texts I wrote, they refused to learn them. And kind you, it was two lines for each. This was supposed to be a non AI passion project and yet three out of four members chose to use it. It hurt especially when C opened CHATGPT to write a conclusion, refusing what I had given them to write. In my opinion, this was pure idiocy, yet the professor didn’t understand and praised us on language choice that was really the AI. And I had to take the praise with a smile when my conscience burned.

I’m not saying that using AI to create the images was idiotic, as there were actual legal reasons behind it, and also understand the potential legal and commitment issues that could arise in the suggestion of having an art competition. I must state though that it is highly discouraging and feels as if hypocritical towards us. If generative AI isn’t permitted for homeworks, roleplays and registrations, why should it be used by the ANDMISTRATORS, no less, to create a new background? The only reasonable use I find for them is avatars, as it must reflect our physical description, which is sometimes so obscure we can’t find a perfect face claim that expresses us, and sometimes, people don’t have knowledge of picrews or other ways to make an avatar to fit their expectations. But even that should be limited.

This site, at its core, fosters creativity and original writing. Therefore, AI in general has no place in the site. There are always better options, even if inconvenient. Even if it is for background images.

Possible solution:

A viber style personal message background toggle. Bear with me, this might sound stupid and hard to code, but:

Zach can create a few house and school themed backgrounds that are literally stripes or a pattern of the colours house/school in question that are INCREDIBLY SIMPLISTIC. They are the default background options, along with the blank background.

Then, there is the other option of having any image as a background possible, as long as it fits some dimension requirements. It’s ok if it’s a bit distorted, since there are also non distorted images by Zach provided.

This way: (the pros)
- credits to artists are not really needed since everyone either has no background, a Zach made background or their own personal one that is visible to them only
- the chance if the art being retracted by the artist is non existent, and pertinent to the Zach made backgrounds, that would probably also mean that the site is non existent in code
- there will be no ai images and everyone will be able to have their own background up to their own standards depending on what they want. If they are pro ai, they can put their own ai images, but at their own cost and without affecting anyone else
- it’s basically a consensus between the two sides that kinda works in my opinion.
- Zach will get to have fun and draw a little!

The cons:

-this will have to get coded, so poor Zach
-some people might still not be satisfied
- image hosting for the site might be close to brutal, but I hope it’s viable.

These are all the pros and cons I can think of.

Thank you for letting me say my opinion and solution. Tagging @Solomon Lear and @Zachary Winslow to see this and tell me if it’s a viable solution.

Eugenia Smyrnidi, or the writer behind her, extends their thanks to you.

Is visual art still art without a background?

Artfight, a rather famous website for visual art with over 700,000 users seems to think so. I noticed a lot of back groundless images on deviant art, a site with over 100 million accounts registered [though I'm sure a lot of those are duplicates, that still speaks to a large number of artists].

If not having a background for visual art, doesn't effect the fact its art. How in the world would having AI generated backgrounds effect the fact this is a site dedicated to the non-visual art of writing?

True a lot of art is meant to convey emotion. The Scream conveys the artist's intense negative emotion, The Starry Night, conveys the artist's inner turmoil during its painting. And a lot of people don't get that emotion from AI generated stuff. Which is understandable! However not all art is designed to convey emotion, some art is designed to convey an idea.

For example, I did not create my adorable mushroom dragon figurine to show everyone how I feel, I created it cause I wanted to show everyone this cool idea I had about a mushroom dragon. People don't create set pieces to express some sort of emotion. They create them to help people better visualize the scene that actors are acting out, to immerse the audience in the play. Which would be the point of the background images. Stuff created to convey the idea of the scene your character is in, not absolutely necessary, but helpful nonetheless. If the point of the image isn't to convey emotion, I don't see the problem with the background images being souless. [Specifically, the problem of them being souless, I am aware of all the other problems with AI and acknowledge them. Thats just not what I'm talking about right now as those other issues have been addressed.]

This site has always been a site for writing. Adding AI images won't 'taint' the writing or 'change the site's branding', the focus will still be on the writing, just like how in a play, the focus will still be the actors acting. I think the toggle is a great compromise in this situation because it doesn't take the choice away from either side, we all still get a choice: Background images, or no background images.

Edit: I did edit some of the paragraphs as people were misinterpreting my point. And it was unclear in some places.

Marietta Griffis wrote: 25 Jul 2026, 18:26This site has always been a site for writing. Adding AI images won't 'taint' the writing or 'change the site's branding', the focus will still be on the writing, just like how in a play, the focus will still be the actors acting.

To put it simply. I already feel like any gen ai has no place on this website in the form of pfps and graphics, but when this comes from a completely official and formal place, that takes it a step further. For lack of a better word, I find this decision insulting. Insulting that us, producers of art, preservers of the highest mean of expression from the human soul will ever allow something so soulless. The writing itself may not be tainted, but the entire essence of the site is.

The essence of this site is something man made, community fuelled, and ultimately, it is something with a soul. I want to state clearly that the fact that it does not affect the main purpose of this site (to write) does not mean it affects its values. Take this analogy: a music company for kids' main goal is to produce music. While producing music, they use no explicit language. However, when in a public meet and greet (which is not the main purpose of the artist), they wear a t-shirt with language that would be unacceptable. Do you still find it okay that the artist wore that t-shirt? Yes, it didn't affect the main purpose, but it did affect the values that they should uphold.

I don't understand why this point does not come across. The inclusion of gen ai backgrounds, in my opinion, should not just be insulting to visual artists, but anyone who cares about their craft as any type of artist. I feel like, as members of a community that cares as much about literature and producing meaningful, impactful pieces of it should understand what is being taken away from us with the inclusion of ai.

For me, coming from a very personal and emotional place, this is just spitting on what we are meant to be as artists.

Just popping in to say that we cannot and should not selectively apply rules or values to different kinds of art. Art is art. Period. The distinction between visual and other art is irrelevant. If you are interested in supporting and protecting human art and artists, you have to protect them ALL (writing, drawing, painting, music, etc).

Furthermore, art is something beyond function. People create art of all kinds (written or visual or otherwise) in order to process/explore/understand/manage complex emotions. People create art in order to deal with struggle. That is, in fact, the point. It is because art engages with deep emotions that it is universal and that through it we can find connection. It is, I would wager, why many of us feel so strongly the urge to protect it.

Adding to Engelbrecht's point:
1) Marietta, your argument about creating your adorable mushroom dragon figure is flawed. It was you expressing your imagination, and imagination is very closely linked to emotions. Art is not only about constant struggles, but it could also very well be something softer. Art is profound, AI lacks depth and this is coming from a computer science major.
2) I use a gaming laptop -- 16 inches wide, and honestly even then the screen is not wide enough for me to notice the full background. I am sure before being a writer, everyone has been a reader; if one wants to visualize a scene, they can always read the forum descriptions.
3) Your last argument that involves theatrics; I would like to point out how plays are never just about the actors, but also the music, backgrounds, costumes and the script. If I was watching a play, and any one of these theatre essentials would cause me moral distress, I would have to call the whole play out; very similar to Hio's backgrounds becoming AI-made.

Marietta Griffis wrote: 25 Jul 2026, 18:26
For example, I did not create my adorable mushroom dragon figurine to show everyone how I feel, I created it cause I wanted to show everyone this cool idea I had about a mushroom dragon. People don't create set pieces to demonstrate their constant struggle with that inner voice that has since replaced their disapproving parent. They create them to help people better visualize the scene that actors are acting out, to immerse the audience in the play. Which would be the point of the background images. Stuff created to convey the idea of the scene your character is in.

However heavy use of AI can make some people feel uncomfortable and can make artists think they are no longer needed

Marietta Griffis wrote: 25 Jul 2026, 18:26
This site has always been a site for writing. Adding AI images won't 'taint' the writing or 'change the site's branding', the focus will still be on the writing, just like how in a play, the focus will still be the actors acting. I think the toggle is a great compromise in this situation because it doesn't take the choice away from either side, we all still get a choice: Background images, or no background images.

However it could change the feel of the site as a website that doesn’t use AI

I shall avoid the whole further back and forths AI mostly because I said my piece way before and there is no need to reiterate it or repeat it since most points were already heard or seen by Zach/Lear and everyone else for that matter. (Though I added a last comment at the end of this as to not be fully off subject and this is not me trying to pick a thread apart, though your examples gave me something to think on)
And this is without any malicious intent let me make that clear beforehand.
I am a bit confused what you meant by:

True a lot of art is meant to convey emotion. The Scream conveys the artist's intense negative emotion, The Starry Night, conveys the artist's inner turmoil during its painting. And a lot of people don't get that emotion from AI generated stuff. However a lot of art is designed to merely convey an idea or an ambience.

Which is true for Starry Night and Scream as far as I am aware.
Followed exactly afterwards by

[...]People don't create set pieces to demonstrate their constant struggle with that inner voice that has since replaced their disapproving parent. They create them to help people better visualize the scene that actors are acting out, to immerse the audience in the play. Which would be the point of the background images. Stuff created to convey the idea of the scene your character is in.

Beyond the point that it seems quite odd to me (and maybe a bit on the offensive - more like invalidating - side) to assume people do not do that (especially as you gave conflicting examples above of specifically those cases). - Alas that's my personal opinion only and tone cannot be replicated well in writing at times.
It seems to me that you are contradicting your own point from the examples before that? The Starry Night was very much depicting a struggle. Van Gogh is quite known for that (among other artists yes). Starry Night was made from the perspective of watching out the window from an asylum. Granted, the one he was in was not the most horrible of the era, no, but overall they were overcrowded, understaffed, and at some point in history became "freak shows" (with apologies for using that term but it was...indeed quite like that with people visiting mostly to see the sick like some entertainment) more than actual places meant for treatment.
Scream was painted from the perspective of a troubled tormented mind too. It was an existential crisis and a panic attack (or what we would call a panic attack right now).
Also from Van Gogh with very similar "struggle depictions" "The Night Café", it was a deliberate expression of human despair.
Your examples took two of quite well known artists that also had quite visible and solid struggles and showed those through painting and then said that people do not create things to show their struggles? It seems very paradoxical to use both sides in less than a paragraph worth.
I am more than happy to give sources/debate this further in a respectful manner if need be, just not in this thread as it would be fully off topic.

And as to not make this FULLY unrelated to the thread and thus risk possible comments about that:
The artists you did name would likely not appreciate AI generated images. I will agree that AI as a whole can have its purposes, and it is a means to an end at times. Creative spaces is not where it should be that be that in the form of images, writing, music, etc.

To answer the message directed at me, my DMs have been closed for days and I have not been engaging on site or with private messages unless absolutely necessary. As for why, honestly I don't consider the community to be as friendly as it used to be and the perception is heavily associated with the drama surrounding this thread. Zach's next steps are coming soon, I'll continue with the work as promised.