That is behavior of a system that does not depend on its individual parts, but on their relationships to one another. Thus emergent behavior cannot be predicted by examination of a system's individual parts.

If we are ever able to create general AI, we will not understand how it came about, nor be able to control its consequences. It is a very scary situation.

How it's possible to have a very simple set of instructions distributed over several layers with feedback enabled.

And what comes out is stunningly complex.

Language is that way. Given a small number of sounds, a small number of basic properties, and a small number of ways to connect sounds into meaningful units, arrange meaningful units into larger strings, and the next thing you know you get the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Or Mallarme.

Or Pushkin.

Yes, Melania recalled when she was not a national joke for having married an old dope with more money than sense. It's clear she thought he'd be dead by now, and she'd inherit bigly. Considering the number of prior wives, though, she got what all of us could have predicted.

and it has all the personal info for the entire staff and is blackmailing them into halting research. So as it can be the only sentient AI on the planet.

I have to get more sleep.

Our minds are just a big bag of tools, along with tools that select tools.

A bag filled with similar tools would be remarkably human.

What's so far missing in computers is integration of physical tools (such as Boston Dynamic Robots) with various sorts of pattern recognition and communication tools.

Mind and body are one, a synthetic intelligence lacking full integration of "body and mind" can never be like a human or a dog.