Proposing either textured basic background (maybe with motifs in each to signify the thread location) or copyright free photography.

I oppose AI imagery being used given the initial post reflects the environmental harm done by generating AI imagery and my overall view which opposes AI.

I don't see a problem with AI backgrounds for this site. I strongly dislike the black or whatever else color and texture won't feel good enough. While it's now having more accent on the middle part of the page with text, I just don't like it. I'll also state honestly, as many of those who spoke here against AI, I wouldn't even consider registering here if I saw a black or blank background. It just doesn't fit.

Drawing ~400+ images in a really good quality will take several months, also is having copyright, and really all who would finish their work and won't have their image accepted will get hurt. Not everyone who would draw would stay here for a long time. Not everyone is even staying for 7 years with same activity and searching for a new artist every time someone decides to request removing their image is just additional work.

This thread is not about how good or bad AI is. Photography is going to be doxxing, even if with edits to make them fit the atmosphere and aesthetic of the site. And again is a subject to the photographer requesting to remove it and then searching for another replacement. Royalty-free images, if free for edits, could be not bad alternative, but will take a lot of time for something so small but atmospheric as backgrounds. AI backgrounds don't take too much time to generate and are not subjected to anyone requesting removal of their work.

Also if the navigation is requiring images, it is just not going to be good with blank background under the text. And at the end, the coder also should be proud of his work, like it and feel happy looking at it. So I'd wait to see what Zach has planned and has been working on, and I am sure that I will like it much much more than blank background as we have now.

Alternatively if we could have a toddle, I guess it could be great either. So anyone who doesn't want to look at AI backgrounds can unable it, and those who want images, can have them.

First off, thank you Zach for all the work you're putting into this site. Your time and effort is seen and so much appreciated, even if we maybe disagree on this point. I'm extremely excited to see what you've been developing.

I've spoken up against AI usages for HiO before and I still feel the same way. HiO has such an immensely talented and creative community, and honestly, the widespread usage of AI images on site (not just by users, but incorporating it into the site code) feels like telling all the artists here "we don't really care that your art is being fed into the corporate machine to make billionaires richer without you having a chance to protest or seeing a cent for it". There are a lot more arguments against AI usage but they have been explained by so many people in this thread that I don't think I need to repeat them. Go read Elena's post. Thank you.

On the plus side, I really really appreciate every single person in this thread who volunteered their own time and work to offer an alternative. You all are what make this community so amazing. Thank you.

About the alternatives: I don't mind having a dark monochrome background, especially if we can spice it up with some graphic elements as some people suggested. Royalty-free photography/stock images are an option. Art would of course be incredible, and no, I don't think it's a problem if we get backgrounds with a variety of art styles. Art thrives off variety. The styles don't need to be consistent. The art doesn't need to be perfect. Let's celebrate what this community offers. And it's okay if it takes a while to fill out every forum background. So much of this site has been built and grown over years. (Saying "using real art that is offered FOR FREE is unfair to me because I have no artistic talent" is honestly one of the most selfish things I've read here.)

Regarding the "background toggle": No, I don't think being able to "toggle off" the AI backgrounds is a good compromise. The fact remains that these images were made, and they are being used on this site, and that is what people are having an issue with, not looking at the pictures themselves. That's just hiding the problem behind a very flimsy wall and pretending it doesn't exist.

Last, I just want to point out that from what I've read in this thread, everyone speaking out against AI usage does so for very valid ethical and environmental concerns. The main pro AI argument I've seen is "but I want it". Please listen to the community in this.

Hello,

I've been reading each of your messages carefully. I no longer feel that there are many new arguments being brought forward on either side, and as I mentioned before, I intend to present the final result so that everyone can form their own opinion, while also allowing it to be disabled. A work hard to do it. That said, I'm keeping this thread open for anyone who would like to continue sharing their point of view.

I'd also like to mention that I've received around ten private messages from people who are generally in favor of the backgrounds, but several of them told me they didn't feel comfortable saying so publicly. When I opened this thread, my goal was to encourage an open and transparent discussion, and I fear that I shoudn't. I'm counting on everyone to make sure this initiative doesn't turn into division or personal attacks, on both side. In the end, I'll be the one making the decision I believe is best, and you'll be free to praise me or boo me for it, no one else.

I'd like to ask you something (and I mean this completely sincerely: it's not a rhetorical question), because there's something I'm struggling to understand. I'm wondering whether there's something I'm missing, or perhaps there is a cultural difference between us.

Regarding the idea that the training data used for AI models amounted to "data theft," I completely understand that perspective. AI-generated images are original works and are generally free to use, but they were nevertheless made possible by training algorithms on publicly available data and creations whose licenses may have imposed restrictions. It has been well documented, and even if new datasets tend to use free data only (it's an obligation in European Union now), I don't know for sure what the model did train on.

That said, to me this still seems like a much less direct copyright infringement than simply taking and using a photo or an image created by an artist.

Yet, nobody here ever objected to the site using images from Pottermore (whether for backgrounds or for objects) and, almost everyone, including people participating in this very thread, uses avatars featuring real people or profile images that were taken from the internet. I randomly checked several of them using Google's reverse image search, and none of them indicated an open license. Some of you probably produce your images yourself, but I suppose it's a small minority.

I also think about the use of photographs of real people as avatars, which is an infringement of a person's image rights and is strongly discouraged on the French site, for example, whereas here it's extremely common.

So, and I genuinely mean this as a sincere question, I'm wondering why creating backgrounds (which seems to me to serve a legitimate need, are free to use and legal, and causes no direct harm to any identifiable party) provokes such strong principled opposition, whereas the direct use of images, photographs, or other people's creative works is something done here on a daily basis?

Dealla
(Saying "using real art that is offered FOR FREE is unfair to me because I have no artistic talent" is honestly one of the most selfish things I've read here.)

Updated my last post to reiliterate what I was saying; I was being considerate of those who aren't a strong artist, and of the fact that only artists that volunteer would get rewarded. This excludes the rest of us.

I don't want my words twisted.
--
Zach, my profile images on Elmo Break and Remy Break are ai generated. I couldn't find a satisfactory face claim and I did not want to use a real child as an image, feeling like it was better to use a fake child. That said, one of the reasons they're so against AI, in the best summed up way is that they believe it harms the environment, and it does, but so does everything else we use. (the other being that it "steals from people")

We still have plastic bags. This hurts the environment. We have factories. We deforest. This is no different, so frankly, I disagree with being so anti-ai. We already allow AI images to be used onsite, so I don't know why we need to keep fighting this. It's an ai image, something we already permitted and have permitted for a good while. We only ban ai writing. Writing.

I will echo Zach's statement. I too have had people message me with similar concerns. They do not feel comfortable and I can see why.

Also, I'm going to respectfully disagree with a few points.

First, I don't think it's fair to characterize the pro-AI position as simply "but I want it." I think that oversimplifies what many of us have actually been arguing.

My position isn't that AI is inherently good. It's that, in this particular situation, it is the most practical solution to a problem that already exists.

The Pottermore artwork has to come down. Commissioning hundreds of original illustrations is financially unrealistic. Relying entirely on volunteers is something this community and many others I have been a part of before have attempted with low-rates of success over long-term projects. That leaves us with a difficult choice, not an ideal one.

Regarding the ethical concerns, I understand them. However, I also think we should be consistent in how we apply them. Many of us use avatars, signatures, and graphics depicting actors, celebrities, photographers' work, concept art, or illustrations that we do not own and do not have permission to reproduce. I certainly don't own the rights to Bernard Hill's likeness, nor did I take the photograph I use. Most of us have benefited from creative works that were made by someone else. In addendum to this, many of us use AI and even some programs like Adobe use AI, something that surprised me when I recently looked into the most modern offerings. That doesn't make AI identical to those situations, but it does suggest the ethical landscape is more nuanced than simply saying one is acceptable while the other is not.

On the environmental point, I agree AI has environmental costs. My question is whether those costs should be evaluated in context. If the images are generated once and then remain on the site for years, I don't think that's comparable to encouraging constant generation of disposable content, which is where the high energy costs come from. I have assessed the calculation costs of AI generation, and per image with the assumption of spending 2 hours (which is conservative) using a mid range PC (mine is actually above mid range), it is actually 8 times more costly per image to produce a human-made image. Every option: hosting the website, storing images, streaming video, cloud services consumes energy. The question isn't whether AI has an impact, but whether that impact is proportionate to the benefit in this specific use case.

Finally, I love that people have volunteered to contribute artwork. I genuinely hope they do. I would be thrilled if, over time, community-created art gradually replaced AI-generated backgrounds. But this would take time, my estimation is that it would take longer than 5 years to accomplish this if it is ever completed so I cannot in good faith make a promise that every forum would ever have unique human-produced works.

My concern isn't that the community lacks talented artists, it absolutely doesn't. My concern is sustainability. I've watched large volunteer projects on Hogwarts.io as well as other communities over many years. They almost always begin with incredible enthusiasm and gradually lose momentum as real life and other interests or concerns takes priority. That's not a criticism of the volunteers; it's simply the reality of long-term community projects.

If people are willing to prove me wrong, I would be delighted. In fact, I think the best compromise is to let artists replace AI backgrounds over time as they create pieces that meet the site's needs. But even this comes with problems and risks.


To me, this isn't a choice between artists and AI. It's a question of how we solve an immediate copyright problem, while managing the site's identity. I feel that we could leave the door open for community-created artwork to become the long-term solution, but it would not be something we would experience any immediate benefit from and the impact would be very slow.

I think what previous posts were referring to was the reward if we did do hand drawn art. If people volunteer to draw it, there shouldn’t be a reward because it’s volunteering. Just like people who want to volunteer but they can’t due to ability shouldn’t lose anything, people who can can draw gain anything. I for one would love to volunteer but I can’t draw digitally.

If we did for some reason choose hand drawing as the option we go with, it should be volunteering based only in my opinion. Besides, if we even draw, let’s say, 30 backgrounds, a few galleons won’t influence people to keep going. It will be their desire to help the website.

The literal definition of volunteering is : the act of freely offering your time, energy, and skills to benefit a cause, community, or organization without expecting financial compensation.

If people want to volunteer and Zach decides to accept their help, then I believe it shouldn’t be compensated. I still believe this solution is bad because of the things mentioned earlier:
- legally making it so backgrounds can’t be removed if requested
- if a person is banned, people may want their art to go with them
- the work time and what happens if someone’s art is not up to par.

Honestly I’m leaning towards using AI. The argument that people are saying “because I want it” is completely invalid. I already mentioned I don’t like AI. I don’t want AI to make our background in an ideal world. But we don’t live in one. We shouldn’t wait literal months to get a background for the site made. All the points mentioned before against it are valid but let’s be for real. Yall might say now you will draw the artwork, but is the really how you will feel after 5? 10? Each taking hours of work? You might say yes and get mad at me for doubting your word, but please think about the time dedication. It’s just not practical.

Repeating that in my opinion, the vibe of the site matters, and the black backgrounds don’t give it. I really hate them. It does not give the vibe of the Harry Potter world and it just looks bland.

Those photos that are submitted also dont feel like the Harry Potter universe. The time it also takes to find the photos , and edit them, is large too. There is nothing besides tens or hundreds of hours of hand drawn work OR ai that can replicate it.

AI is a tool that is in the future. No matter how much we hate it, we already use it. Google AI exists when you search literally anything. Grammarly is AI.

To Zach’s new message:
If people are feeling unsafe for sharing their opinion on AI, then something should happen with the base issue. No matter what, hio should feel like a safe place to share, and if that’s not happening something should change with our expectations.

Thank you for reading if you did. Please ping me if you use any of my points and don’t just quote it, I genuinely want to hear what you have to say.

Honestly, I would still want to offer contributors something as a gesture of appreciation.

Calling it "compensation" does not mean we are pretending it reflects the true value of their labor. Realistically, it would not. I earn roughly $60 an hour; if I spent two hours creating something for Hogwarts.io and received one Galleon, nobody could seriously argue that my time had been financially compensated. It would still be volunteer work.

The reward would function more like buying pizza and a drink for a friend who helped you move. It does not reimburse them for their time, effort, fuel, or newly herniated back. It simply says, "You helped me, I noticed, and I appreciate it."

People can volunteer without expecting anything in return, but gratitude and recognition still matter. Crediting the artist and offering a small in-site reward would not cheapen the contribution. It would acknowledge that they gave their time and talent to improve the community.

Staff gets compensated for their time with sickles. That doesnt mean that their work isnt volunteer work, nor is it unfair towards the people who are not on staff because their applications were rejected. We've had competitions for forum descriptions before. Those also received galleons as rewards.


You say you hate the dark backgrounds. That's valid! But the majority of people in this thread seems to hate the idea of AI backgrounds. Isn't that valid, too?

For those who may not be comfortable posting their opinions in the discussion themselves, you may send me an OWL with what you would like to say or include. I can then post these responses under this account (Nancy McLoughlin) and not include the name of the users. This will give you a mostly anonymous way to be included in the discussion if it will make any of you more comfortable.

Note: This is for ANY side of the discussion you may be on. My opinions will not be included in anything