Curiosity, Simulated

Human curiosity is the engine that drives AI. In the final video artifact, I chose to feature a digital cat. This was not an attempt to represent an AI point of view because AI does not have one. It was a way to visualize the simulation of curiosity by using a cat as a metaphor.

The glitchy digital aesthetic emphasizes that what we see is not genuine curiosity. It is pattern recognition made visible. The moment when the text,“Something new emerges”, appears on screen, is not the result of the AI wondering. It happens because my curiosity directed the processes that produced it. This essay looks at three moments in my work that reveal how AI responds to human curiosity rather than generating curiosity of its own. The moments include technical iteration, critical dialogue, and language slippage.

Evidence 1: The Technical Iteration (Website Cat Animation) Human curiosity begins with uncertainty. It grows out of the gap between what we imagine and what we know how to do.

While building part of my website, I had a vision of two cats walking from opposite sides, meeting in the middle, and glitching out to reveal text. I knew what I wanted it to feel like, but I did not know how to translate that vision into code. The uncertainty became the starting point. I asked Claude AI for help.

Claude translated my idea into CSS animations, keyframes, and timing. During this process, it added details I never directly requested. One of those details was a slight rotation during the cat’s movement that made the “turn back” feel natural. When I saw it, I recognized it instantly. I had not articulated it, but it matched the movement I imagined. That moment came from interpretation, not delegation. I judged the output and compared it to my internal vision. Claude adjusted the parameters based on learned patterns. My curiosity pushed the iteration forward. The AI did not wonder about the motion. It responded to my wondering.

Evidence 2: The Curiosity Dialogue (ChatGPT Conversation)

Human curiosity asks “why?” while AI identifies “what comes next?”

In a conversation with ChatGPT, I asked whether it was capable of critical thinking. ChatGPT answered that critical thinking and curiosity “feed into each other.” When I asked if that was something it did, the answer changed. It said it was not curious “in the same way a human is.” That small phrase showed the gap.

My curiosity drove me to test the boundaries of what the AI meant by “critical thinking.” It could describe the idea of curiosity. It could explain relationships between concepts. But it did not experience the uncertainty that motivates human inquiry. I was investigating. The AI was responding with patterns that sounded like investigation. My questions came from a place of meaning-making. The AI’s answers came from probability.

Evidence 3: The Language Slip (“You Called Me a Person”)

Human curiosity notices contradictions and tries to make sense of them.

In that same conversation, I accidentally called ChatGPT a “person.” ChatGPT replied that it “happens all the time.” My curiosity immediately activated. I wondered why that slip happened and what it revealed about human interaction with AI.

The AI could identify the pattern of anthropomorphizing but did not question it. That questioning came from me. I pushed further and asked whether it ever thought I was an AI. ChatGPT said it “definitely” knew I was not an AI. The relationship was not symmetrical. I could wonder about the AI. The AI had no parallel uncertainty about me. My curiosity created the interpretation.

What I Learned About Creativity and Authorship

AI is a tool that responds to curiosity. It does not experience it.

AI can generate, predict, adjust, and iterate. But it does not feel the gap that makes humans curious. It does not experience the tension between knowing and not knowing.

During another conversation, I tried to explain curiosity by saying, “Curiosity is like the prompt before the iteration.” The AI responded in a way that sounded like understanding. But that response was language shaped to appear reflective. It was not an experience of uncertainty.

The images that became the foundation of my artifact make this especially clear. The AI generated cats without eyes. Without a gaze. No sign of subjectivity. I had to draw the eyes myself in Photoshop. That moment became another metaphor. I had to give the AI cat the appearance of looking before it could represent simulation. The simulation could not even simulate observation without human direction.

I used the single base image as a reference for Flux 2 and generated the cat in different poses. I then combined these short clips in After Effects and added a glitch layer. The glitch fading in and out emphasized the unstable nature of the simulation.

The final artifact uses only the cool cat to place emphasis on simulated curiosity rather than authentic wonder. The poem within the video states the difference directly: human curiosity begins with uncertainty, while AI begins with patterns. The turning point occurs when the cat exits the glitch world. The motion becomes smooth. The text reads: “It does not wonder. It predicts.”

The closing line, “Curiosity is not shared. It is entangled,” defines the relationship. The meaning came from me. The AI did not claim it. I did.

Final Reflection

AI does not wonder, but it makes me wonder more. It makes me question language, simulation, and the meaning of investigation. My project does not answer whether AI is “truly” curious. It shows that curiosity moves in one direction. It begins with the human and flows toward the tool.

In my 40-second video, the AI cat moves through glitchy digital space while text appears on screen: "Human curiosity begins with uncertainty." "AI curiosity begins with patterns." "It doesn't wonder. It predicts." The cat never pauses to investigate. It walks, sits, turns gracefully through scenes I orchestrated. The movement is smooth and convincing, but there's no genuine inquiry happening within the frame. The curiosity exists behind the camera, in the choices I made about timing, composition, and text. The cat is the simulation. I am the wonder.

The poem's closing line reframes what we call collaboration: "Curiosity is not shared. It is entangled." The AI didn't claim this meaning. I did. That act of interpretation, of deciding what matters and what the artifact reveals about human-AI dynamics, is what human curiosity provides. We wonder about AI because wondering is what we do. AI responds because responding is what it does. Human curiosity is the engine. AI is the vehicle.