(This message is not directed at Zach).

It took a lot of courage for many people here to speak up. I think it is a bit unfair to silence others or discourage them from speaking up simply because you disagree with them. Especially after some of you have freely voiced your own opinions. People are spread across different timezones and will not have had the chance to express themselves. However, I encourage anyone commenting to use a respectful tone when communicating as there are humans reading your messages.

I saw nothing wrong with what Emma said. I can see that she is trying to express her opinion while being respectful and not bringing anyone down.

After reading new input, I do agree that the toggle ignores the underlying issue, but I will see what happens next before commenting further. I appreciate the use of a poll and I respect Zach's decision to step back from this thread. At the end of the day, I will not force Zach's hand but I wished to give honest input. Thank you for all your efforts and hard work, Zach.

I am stepping back from this topic to avoid redundancy.

Emma van Elst wrote: Yesterday, 17:29

I apologize if any of my messages made you uncomfortable, that wasn’t my intention.

No no no dw your allowed to have an opinion! I’m sorry if I made you feel that way. Disappears from the topic

I’m just posting here to say that I am against AI for moral reasons, similarly to many others. Others have summarized my thoughts already.

I would like to thank Zach for allowing us an anonymous vote in order to give us the opportunity to have a say in the decision-making on site, which I know many of us hold dear.

I've seen a lot of AI-generated images over the past few years, and while (no offense) these images often feel bland and soulless... which doesn't match my (just my own) preferences, I'm neutral about people using AI for their graphics. The only thing I'm not comfortable with regarding AI use here in this site is using it for writing purposes.

But instead of agreeing with AI use in this case, here are two suggestions (from the amazing people above, not mine) that sound good to me:
1. Buying a license for just a few images (or using free image stocks) to be used repeatedly across multiple forums (for example: the entire Hogwarts Castle forums except the Common Rooms use one background, and the Hogwarts Grounds forums use one other background for all forums, etc.);
2. I'm also fine with a combination of textured & one colored backgrounds for some sub-forums... such as the Sports Locker Rooms, Hourglasses, House Cup Reward Page, etc.

Unless this really goes against your design idealism, I don't think those ideas would hurt to try.

Of course, still, I'm looking forward to see the result of your incredible hard work. Fighting Zach!

I would actually like some clarity regarding the overall copyright risk that is now affecting the backgrounds, yet seemingly not the UI assets or the names as much. The website is called Hogwarts.io which, as Zachary has already pointed out in a different topic, is a risk in itself. The rest of the website is likewise named after places from the Harry Potter world. We have Ravenclaw, Slytherin, Gryffindor, and Hufflepuff, as well as locations such as Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, all of which appear throughout the UI of our roleplay space.

In addition, most of the backgrounds are locked behind registration and login requirements. Many of them can only be viewed by users who are logged in and have the necessary permissions to access them.

All of this leaves me wondering at what point, and under which circumstances, the risk would officially be considered reduced. If the backgrounds remain black, will the website and the school be renamed next? Will every location be changed, along with the text that appears on Google when searching for this website, until the connection to Warner Bros' Harry Potter is no longer recognisable?

At the moment, it feels as though an argument is spreading over AI usage in our backgrounds when, in the grand scheme of things, none of the proposed solutions would alter the fact that the website itself would still need to change in order to avoid the wider copyright risk.

If the website is going to change drastically regardless, we might as well remove the idea of Hogwarts from the backgrounds altogether and consider more neutral approaches instead.

Wherever this brings us, I want to thank Zachary for maintaining this place and for opening the debate on an underlying problem this Website is facing.

(I totally did not read the entire nine pages of discussion, so apologies if this is a re-tread of already covered ground).

I'm not 100% opposed to using AI images. I feel about AI similarly to how I feel about other things that give us increased productivity and cost savings at a social or moral cost (like factory farming, or fast fashion) -- it's a problem that needs to be solved systematically and with regulation and policing individual uses is a little pointless. This is doubly the case for this particular use, since people using AI to generate images for their private, for-fun site is not a big economic driver for AI. AI keeps operating because companies pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars for enterprise products.

That being said, I do worry a lot about what AI does to the economics of art. It's significantly different to me from other grey area uses of copyrighted art in that it has the potential to drive the original artist off the market completely.

I think that, in these uncertain times, there is value in creating new norms that say that art produced by humans is valuable (especially since a lot of people in this community have expressed that exact sentiment). And the way we say stuff is valuable, often, is by paying money for it. I think this is a good opportunity to do that.

I understand that paying for art is expensive, but I don't see why we need distinct images for each forum. I think it should be feasible to raise the money to commission a couple (to a handful, depending on how much money we can raise) images -- perhaps an interior and an exterior castle shot--and then use them around the place.

Either way, whatever this comes to, I appreciate your commitment, Zach, to transparency and open discussion.

(Edit: I just read Zach's last couple of posts, so this is probably moot since preserving the current site design as closely as possible is important to him. Teaches me not to read the discussion first.)

In my first post, many people likely thought that I was mostly anti-AI, which is true, but honestly, I'm mostly anti-gen-AI.

Ai is kinda mixed honestly. AI started developing during the 40s and 50s and around the 60s, it stopped getting funding. It always existed as long as we had computational technology, just not to the extent that we have today in the 2020s where investment went crazy and we have the AI we know today, mostly advanced Gen AI. AI is beneficial to healthcare but honestly, you don't need AI for everything and the way it has been pushing it to everyone is off-putting me, which made it a different era compared to past decades.

In other words, AI always existed, but the insane push to it suddenly had made people uncomfortable. I'm actually surprised no one actually discussed more about Zach's question here.

And I personally think the reason people are very comfortable using copyrighted and licensed photographs and arts, but not AI work, is mainly due to the insane push towards AI. When I was a child, I personally wasn't familiar with copyrighted rules but even in assignments and projects, in school, most teachers did not care. In college it mattered perhaps but even then, some professors cared only if you cite the pictures you used, but in school, it didn't matter at all.

Everything modern has a consequence. Plastic pollutes the environment, computers use a lot of precious metals, which is likely often unethically sourced (child labor, etc.). Everything is unethical, and we live in a mostly unethical world, and like copyright infringement, most were mostly just unaware about it and chose to ignore it, because it didn't happen suddenly, it happen gradually over time.

AI always existed, but Gen AI took off in the 2020s and the changes were much more rapid. There wasn't a generation that got used to using a little plastic and then a bit more, suddenly, AI was just flung at everyone in the face. I still know so many people who think AI in general was "invented" in the 2020s, it wasn't. But the suddenness did tick a lot of people off.

My personal opinion is biased, but I personally think with so many issues in the world, AI isn't problematic such as for healthcare and other issues. It can be helpful for such industries but like many other issues, such as insane plastic consumption, and all the other pollution that is there already, many aren't happy about another change and adding onto problems we are already struggling to solve. In addition, it's push towards everything, not necessary things like healthcare, has pushed a lot of people off. If you just want to look up something, Google Gemini pops up, and honestly I disagree with the usage of AI in creative spaces, when AI should only be used for problems that actually matter, since the entire world is already struggling with the consequences of other innovations, perhaps, many don't want to add another one.

In other words, AI isn't the most problematic if the push wasn't crazy, since companies suddenly started investing and using unethical means like Elena discussed to sudden do everything and only focusing on money, not on a way to focus it only on fixing problems that matter (e.g. healthcare again) and focusing it to develop it more gradually over the years. That is what mostly ticks me off, that big corporate companies do not care much about the consequences like with other innovations like plastic, the only difference is, they didn't wait for most of the world to get used to it.

The fact that everyone is also using copyrighted images is also a valid concern, and I'm personally working to create my own art for Denise so I further support copyright integrity as well. But for Zach's rhetoric question, this is honestly personally why I think that's the case.

Whether you are anti or pro AI, you have the right to disagree and agree with me, and like Zach said, let's be respectful for everyone has different experiences and opinions and I personally believe both sides are valid in your own way.

I want to state that i have an immense empathy for Zachary as someone who also feels very strongly about the projects and communities I foster. I have nothing but respect for the years of hard work they have put into this site and am thoroughly impressed with how much they have accomplished- often single-handedly. I am very understanding that this concept is one that Zach has placed a lot of personal and emotional stake in out of passion for the site they have founded, customized, and maintained for a very long time.

I do notice that asking Zach to compromise on this has been painful for him, and for that I am truly empathetic and remorseful for, but the site isn't only Zach's. The reality is that Hogwarts.io has flourished through the continued work and existence of many volunteers and players alike and a large majority of the users here have grown up with this site for just as many years and have just as much emotional investment in their lives here. This is a home to many, many, people- and that is something staff must respect when building a public space and community.

I think it's clear that this is a highly creative community, and that a majority of users here echo the fact that AI material makes the space ingenuine in its quest to express human creativity as was its mission for many years.

To what Zach mentioned earlier- I'd like to address that a major difference between the use AI content and the use of direct imagery and artwork is direct use allows the work to be identified and traced to its source artist. The artist still has autonomy over the material itself that they would not have if their work is fed through AI. Players at least have the ability to credit and recognize non-AI artwork and therefore bring more discussion towards the original artist and source material. The original work is still in the vision of the person who originally posted it. The AI alternative takes the knowledge, skills, style, etc of these artists and strips any autonomy the original artist/poster has in their pieces. The original Pottermore art is genuinely beautiful, and seeing it on the site has absolutely allowed me to research and follow the content of the original artists. The same can be said for avatars and encyclopedia content, in which there are still players that have embraced crediting the source artist/poster somewhere visibly in descriptions. In encountering AI imagery, the artists do not get a say for what content using their likeness/work is or isn't posted, nor do they get any credit or exposure through it.

I'm attaching a couple sketches below, by no means rendered/complete/colored and and these do not have to necessarily represent the style that's wanted for the site, but I want to show an example that we do not need to settle for the two most extreme options.

I cannot speak to the extent that Zach's relevant update would need the exact backgrounds they are wanting, despite offering a pure black background option, however I am confident that volunteer artists are completely capable of following instructions for specific backgrounds and doing nearly-free labor while giving their consent. I am confident that you will be given enough content and that having diverse work should not necessarily be a dealbreaker. I also believe that there are ways you can personally choose work you are generally satisfied with putting up, rather than just voting, etc, while still rewarding those that aren't chosen. We are in an immense position of privilege as gen AI art would not exist if not for the work, time, and skill of artists. They are the reason you have this option at all, so I implore you to turn to them and allow them to create for you.

Hello!
I have been debating whether to join this discussion or not. But here is my honest viewpoint. I will also try to answer what Zach and Lear asked about.
As someone who is currently studying AI, I could write a paragraph about how unethical Generative AI is. It is causing enough harm out there on the internet.
A lot of people have already pointed it out before me. While I know literally everything we do pollutes the environment, Generative AI dissolves the need of art, or in general, the liberation provided by it.
AI's purpose is to reduce our time spent on meaningless [and repetitive] tasks. Just why the computer was invented, to reduce our work load.
It is to leave us with enough time, so we could do what we really want to do! Everyone in this world, is inclined to some sort of art! What's the point of AI doing our hobbies for us too?
Moreover, if you are against the use of having AI in texts, it would be rather hypocritical to use AI for background images.

Zach, this site is not just an rpg site for us. This is a site, where we can be as creative as we are. I myself have never been interested in making drawings or doing graphic designs but I have been inspired by every active user on this site. I even plan to take a graphic designing course!
Coming to your question about using people from the internet as our pfps and face claims.
1) I am against using children's images as my profile pic, given that I am now an adult. Despite my profile pic not matching my character's age, I think as long as I describe her enough it's alright.
2) Famous celebrities have always been cited as a source of art works, including books. I have heard so many animators and book writers who were inspired by particular celebrities or had taken inspiration from their looks. I am sure they know they are being used as profile pics across social medias.
3) I remember reading on the discord server, that Elena Clark had actually dmed the person she uses as the fc for the character to get permission. I know there's no transparency, and I am going by what Elena had said, but I do really support this idea.
One could counter it with: everyone can fake getting permissions and I agree that it can be done, but then again that's their morals. I know it would be hard to implement a system where you could check where the fc has been derived from.
What users do and where they source those pics from is likely to affect only the user and not the site, as far as I know.

Last but not the least,
Art has been centuries old, we will always end up taking inspiration from somewhere. But I would rather have a human take inspiration from my art work and make something new and interesting rather than seeing AI mix and match my art work with other people's art work and call it a day. Human art has sentiments, AI does not. Earth without art is eh and art is nothing without the sentiments behind it. AI steals, humans take inspiration. A human stealing art work is always called out too, so same way AI should be called out too, only that it's less obvious increasingly. We as an art community (yes this is what I like to call us) should not be supporting this.

A lil note: This was an extremely long message, and English is not my first language, although I still hope I was able to put up my argument clearly.

Most here have already captured my thoughts perfectly so I will refrain from paragraphs. I am strongly against the use of AI and would much prefer a blank background. Just because other people are already doing using AI art, or just because all technology has an environmental impact as I saw someone else mention as a defence, doesn't mean that it's justifiable to add onto that, especially when there are many viable alternatives. As suggested by many other people here: using royalty free images, volunteer art (which I would be happy to help contribute), texture/colour patterned backgrounds, etc. Like Cecilia, I'll be stepping back to avoid redundancy, but can further explain my views if needed.