# Process-Constituted Intelligence: A Shared Criterion for Humans and Machines

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16213 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16213/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 70 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08872/) (2025)
- [Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09089/) (2025)
- [When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05246/) (2025)
- [Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17536/) (2025)
- [Beware of Metacognitive Laziness: Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Learning Motivation, Processes, and Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09315/) (2024)
- [Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate -- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08788/) (2025)
- [Can LLM Agents Really Debate? A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent Debate in Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07784/) (2025)
- [Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere (TAME): an experimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.10346/) (2021)
- [Six Fallacies in Substituting Large Language Models for Human Participants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04470/) (2024)
- [How AI Impacts Skill Formation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20245/) (2026)
- [Teaching Models to Verbalize Reward Hacking in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22777/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Do Not Simulate Human Psychology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06950/) (2025)
- [Levels of Analysis for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13401/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Intelligence is constituted by textitprocess (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on textittraces (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define textitstrong equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.