One of the most important causes of frequent confusion, is the difference between Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence. Yes AI is pretty much just processing information but because intelligence has been redefined in this field. It's like how physicists use the term information in the context of entropy, it's a crucial, but somewhat slippery, distinction that contradicts everyday usage of the word. AI was originally intended to be used like AGI is now, but as people worked on it & we have started to understand how sophisticated things our brains do that we take for granted, the goalposts have moved. And AI has come to mean any little step on the journey to more sophisticated computers.
AGI is it's own big topic. The Human Brain Project aims to find out more. OrchOR theory suggests there may be quantum processes at work in the brain or at least in memory, that put the task several extra orders of magnitude away from the scope of that project - studying connectomes of simple organisms is key to this, & I would say currently supportive of OrchOR. Not much is known about quantum computing in practice (there are only 2 quantum algorithms), but they are simulatable by classical computers, which themselves given enough time could all simulate each other, because they are Turing Machines (or more correctly, TM-equivalent). Integrated Information Theory is an important proposal in how systems might become 'more intelligent, and it helps explain dfferent states of human consciousness & arousal, a previously neglected topic in intelligence.
I heartily recommend John Vervaeke's Awakening From The Meaning Crisis lectures, just as a short introduction to philosophy, but more for framework he builds of terms like relevance-realisation, cognitive grip, and salience landscapes. This gets at the fundamental difference between information and meaning - the sifting of information for what is relevant, and assembling the useful bits, in a task-related way.
The computer intelligence bible, that you will find a LOT more people in computing talk about than read, is Douglas Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. It's not that it's technical, it really isn't, it's written a little like Alice In Wonderland, & a little like early Greek philosophy, and is full of thought-experiments (Gedankenexperiments) which people outside of physics always underestimate. But, the book takes patience & tenacity to get through it's doorstop size, while it keeps stretches your brain. Some chapters take chewing over for ages to absorb. It's an amazing work.
Hofstadter proposed that the defining quality of consciousness is what he called being a 'strange loop'. This comes out of a context of Godel's Incompleteness & the halting problem in relation to Turing Machines. So it takes a little background to appreciate. He argues that something happens when you relate lots of sets of data together, that goes beyond circular reasoning, or using axioms, or infinite regress (Munchausen's Trilemma, a funny way of referencing 'impossible' things in the Baron Munchausen story), because you get tangled hierarchies, with self-reference, feedbacks, and moving around in our hierarchy of methods of knowing in a way that is not quite machine-logical, and that the origins of consciousness are there. This article has some nice examples of using it in philosophy - it's like a way to 'shew the fly out of the bottle', to use logic to go 'beyond' logic.
Here's a relevent short post:
How is knowledge possible?
And a longer post working from the top-down philosophical side on meaning, and covering intersubjectivity, an important idea in peer-to-peer reality building:
According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings come from?
There is a powerful tendency for people in science and computing to think there is nothing very interesting or special about human minds. And unfortunately, a powerful strand in philosopy which says there is something so soecial about them, scientists aren't on track to figuring them out - the 'qualia' idea and the so called Hard Problem Of Consciousness. I strongly recommend not joining either camp. The story of physics has been from thinking we were a few results away from explaining everything in 1900, and now we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of - our greatest progress has been to begin understanding the scope of our ignorance. I feel strongly we are on a similar trajectory about intelligence.