[ART] The last thing biter sees

[FridolinSlehacka]

With release of Space Age, I realized that Factorio was resting in my Steam library for years since I last played it. So I hopped into the game and enjoyed around a hundred hours in this amazing creation. The time well spent in this game inspired me to create this fanart which depics the game's iconic and never-ending routine.

IMG_factorio_export10_edit1_medQ.jpg (770.04 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

IMG_factorio_export13_edit1_medQ.jpg (819.4 KiB) Viewed 1779 times

[Shulmeister]

nust ?

[FridolinSlehacka]

You see those biters there? They must've started to bite off the text already...

[Shulmeister]

I thought it was AI generated as they fail to properly write M and N letters often time

[FridolinSlehacka]

I can assure you it is not. The half-baked M letter is intentional - I worked hard to mess up that letter on my own!

[Shulmeister]

this website seems to say there's 98% chance your image is AI made and 2% not :

https://aidetectcontent.com/ai-generate ... -detector/

Congrats ! that's one of the highest score I have ever seen x) Even taking an image straight from AI generation isn't always as clear !

Those too :

https://aiimagedetector.org
https://app.illuminarty.ai/

I haven't been able to find any that wouldn't say so, quite an impressive skill you have there !

[FridolinSlehacka]

Thank you!

The funny thing is that you are trying to say it is AI generated... with AI checkers.

I would not take any of these results as relevant in the first place. I tried to feed one of them an AI generated image and the result was... whooping 11% of AI probability. Then I provided a random screenshot from some game and guess what? A 50% probability of AI use. The results from the rest of tools seems to be completely random. For example one of those correctly says the testing AI image is indeed an AI, but then it also marks the game screenshot with 81% AI probability.

Screenshot 2025-02-22 3.jpg (215.68 KiB) Viewed 1282 times

Screenshot 2025-02-22 2.jpg (151.85 KiB) Viewed 1282 times

Same goes for example for AI text detection tools. I could feed one of my old school papers to those things and it would spit out the result saying it was written by AI even though AI was not a thing back when the paper was written.

Trying to prove the usage of AI by draging it through some online tool is pretty funny to me. If you just zoom in on the images, you can literally see a bunch of human made imperfections.

If you think it is AI, that is on you. The only outcome from that is, it is a pleasure for me to know someone thinks it was not made by a human but some programmed neural network..

The last thing I have to say in regard to this topic is, that I have the source files from the editor I draw this in. The image itself consists of tens separate layers, not counting the sketch ones. Here is a random screenshot I took while working on it. If you still think it was AI generated, then I just wish you a wonderfull day and happy life.

Screenshot 2025-02-07 6.jpg (214.98 KiB) Viewed 1282 times

[Shulmeister]

The funny thing is that you are trying to say it is AI generated... with AI checkers.

That is standard practice in many compagnies that host mass content, and also necessary to improve generative AI. Adversarial neural network works in pair where some generate images and others try to detect if the images are part of AI generated or study sample, it goes together.

Sure it is not perfect and humans can further modify some AI generated material or use strategies to avoid detection on specific images, but the opposite skill is quite rare, making a picture manually so that EVERY SINGLE publicly online detector can flag it as AI made is very impressive !

Do you mind uploading the source files ? It will be worth studying

[landmine752]

This piece looks quite nice. The second one, where the train looks like it is in motion, is my preferred one. All the details are a nice touch - I find the green biter quite interesting. The font could be more readable, but I kinda like the way it looks.

One piece of feedback I will offer is that the smoke/steam is a little too much. I think it could be much less dense and opaque to help the details show through. In both versions of the piece, I think the smoke/steam detracts too much from the overall piece.