Re: "Natural language does not emerge naturally"
Natural languages have plenty of rules (meanings, structure, etc.) that have been accepted by their users. Even if the meanings of words evolve over time, it's within an underlying framework.
Starting from a blank state and expecting machines to develop all that complexity to produce something that reads like Austen or Wilde is too much to ask. In the old infinite monkeys and typewriters thing, they're not starting blank, but will have a societal hierarchy so that the opinion of one outweighs the rest. AIs don't even have that, so will spend a lot of time babbling on trying to establish the rules of engagement, so to speak.
However, what the tabloid fuss fails to understand is that there may have been a real symbolic sub-code emerging and task information was being processed. If meta showed that one of the AIs was leading choices of words in the other, so they were deferring and showed understanding, then that's far more interesting. But it's also beyond the level of tabloid sensationalism and the "headline-soundbite" clickbait model they use.
OTOH it could have just been totally random, heading nowhere, and a waste of electrons.