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

Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as large language models and autonomous agents are deployed in online settings. Existing approaches evaluate whether a system can produce behavior or responses indistinguishable from those of a human, following the emphasis on outputs as a criterion for intelligence proposed by Alan Turing. Cognitive science offers an alternative perspective: evaluating the process by which behavior is produced. To test whether cognitive processes can reliably distinguish humans from machines, we introduce CogCAPTCHA30, a battery of 30 cognitive tasks designed to elicit diagnostic process-level features even when task performance is matched. Across the battery, process-level features provide stronger discriminative signal than performance metrics alone, reliably distinguishing humans from agents even under output matching (mean process-feature classifier AUC = 0.88). To evaluate agentic process differences, we compare off-the-shelf frontier agents (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro), Centaur (a language model fine-tuned on 10.7M human decisions), and two task-specific fine-tuning approaches applied to Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct: action-level supervised fine-tuning (A-SFT) and process-level fine-tuning (P-SFT), which directly optimizes process features. Broad fine-tuning on human decisions improves human-like task processes relative to off-the-shelf agents, while task-specific process-level supervision further improves behavioral mimicry. However, this advantage diminishes under cross-task transfer when supervised process targets do not naturally generalize across tasks. Explicit process-level supervision can improve human behavioral mimicry, but only if appropriate task-specific process representations are available, highlighting process specification as a bottleneck for achieving human-like cognitive processes in machines.

The incorporation of generative models into traditional computational systems presents both enormous opportunity and tremendous peril. Although many early adopters have realized these perils at great expense, the field still requires foundational frameworks to de-risk incorporation of AI into traditional systems. This manuscript establishes this foundation through the definition of four specific primitives of AI blended architecture, designed to enable deterministic encapsulation of probabilistic models. It further establishes two overarching anti-patterns broadly represented across industry to serve as warnings for engineers in this field. This framework was designed to enable successful integration of AI into traditional systems while providing a foundation upon which generative model providers could build the next generation of generative model interfaces.

Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.