> Since there isn't a plain sequence of steps that can be followed to explain the output
There is a sequence of steps, it's just very long and unintelligible to humans.
I'm not even sure I disagree with you: Quantity has a quality of its own.
If those sequences of steps are intentionally designed I lean more towards it being algorithm. It gets a little confusing when thinking about writing a path finding algorithm that takes you from A to B using randomness to get there (trying different spatial directions)
You wrote the code that tries random directions, but you are not choosing which directions it takes when executed.
Since there isn't a plain sequence of steps that can be followed to explain the output, i'd say a different term is justified. Whether you call that "intelligence" is debatable.