This is certainly an interesting idea but my initial feeling is that I'd disagree. AI, despite its growing complexity, remains completely manufactured and deterministic, and thus there is no intrinsic or organic root to its activities. The Ghost in the Machine of any of its output remains in the domain of its human handlers, which itself it limited by the nature of the input.

It's hard to imagine any tech that wasn't built with someone's human values in mind, even if those values don't align with our own.

Computers remain true to their name: they simply compute, they don't think. Any perceived anomaly in its output can be traced directly to a computation, which I think makes it different to Koestler's idea of linguistic development the evades human logic.

Still, I think you're right that Koestler would be fascinated by this question. I've just picked up a copy of The Case of the Midwife Toad which looks like it delves into some of the minutiae of scientific interpretation. I'll see if my feelings change after reading it.