Well, how does "If a process is unintelligent, it only produces unintelligent beings" fit the pattern of (a->b) <=> (~b->~a) ? There's no comparison between the two...

Let a(x) = "x is a process that is unintelligent". Let b(x) = "x only produces unintelligent beings". Given these definitions, a(x) -> b(x) is equivalent to your statement. Now, as you say, the transposition ~b(x) -> ~a(x) is true if and only if a(x) -> b(x).

In other words applying the transposition identity to the original claim, you get:
If the statement "If a process is unintelligent, it only produces unintelligent beings" is true, then "If something produces no unintelligent beings, then it is not an unintelligent process." is true.

This is a true statement, but one that is useless unless you can show that one side is true.

Essentially what you did was take some irrelevant but true fact and then say "therefore" followed by some unproven claim. Waffles can be eaten, therefore the stars are sentient. That something in the world is true, implies that my particular claim is true.