A curious thing happens when a new invention arrives. First, we overestimate it. Then we misunderstand it. Then we give it a grand title that sounds impressive enough to excuse the misunderstanding.

That is how calculators became “smart,” dashboards became “intelligent,” and now complex software has been promoted to “autonomous.”

It is not.

The word people keep reaching for is automation. That means a process runs on its own once we set it in motion. Washing machines are automated. So are email filters. So is the software now being marketed as if it had woken up one morning, looked in the mirror, and declared independence?

Autonomous means self-governed. From the Greek autos, meaning self, and nomos, meaning law. An autonomous being writes its own rules. It decides what counts as success. It can question its own goals and change them. Autonomy is about governance, not automation.

The systems being praised today cannot do that. They follow instructions, optimize for the targets we provide, and operate within the boundaries we define. They perform. They do not reflect. Even improvement is fundamentally an automated feedback mechanism. The judging part remains entirely human.

The Missing Ingredient Is a Self

Supporters of the autonomy label tend to skip one awkward requirement. Autonomy requires a self. Not in a poetic sense. In a literal one.

No self means there is no self-governance. That is not philosophy showing off. That is just how words work.

Adding “self” to other terms does not solve the problem. Self-learning, self-improving, self-correcting. These phrases describe loops inside a system. They do not describe a being with interests, perspective, or identity. The “self” is structural and still dependent on human design, data, and direction.

Calling that autonomy is like calling a thermostat a philosopher because it contemplates the temperature.

There is a word for what these systems actually are. Heteronomous.

Heteronomy means governed by rules that come from somewhere else. Goals set by people. Boundaries designed by people. Evaluations defined by people. Overrides controlled by people.

What you have are heteronomous systems.

Heteronomous agents.

Heteronomous AI.

That is a factual clarification. Tools are supposed to be heteronomous. That is what keeps responsibility, authority, and accountability anchored where they belong.

With us.

Everything About Today’s Systems Cancels Autonomy

Let us be concrete.

1. A human chooses the goal = not autonomy.
2. A human defines success = not autonomy.
3. A human can turn the system off = not autonomy.
4. A human can retrain it = not autonomy.
5. A human can override it = not autonomy.
6. A human chose the data = not autonomy.
7. A human set the boundaries = not autonomy.
8. A human updates the model = not autonomy.
9. A human controls deployment = not autonomy.
10. A human controls access = not autonomy.
11. A human determines the problem space = not autonomy.
12. A human defines what counts as “good” or “bad” behavior = not autonomy.
13. A human owns the system = not autonomy.
14. A human is legally responsible for outcomes = not autonomy.
15. A human can patch, constrain, or roll back behavior = not autonomy.

In every case, 100% of the time, you have heteronomy.

A chess program can defeat grandmasters. It cannot decide that winning feels empty, and it would rather try painting landscapes. The objective was handed down by its designers. It executes someone else’s intention with remarkable efficiency. That is automation wearing a tuxedo.

Why the Word Mix-Up Matters

It may seem harmless to use a dramatic label. It is not.

First, it blurs responsibility. When a company says “the system decided,” the sentence quietly erases the people who chose the objectives, tuned the metrics, and deployed the product. If harm occurs, accountability does not lie with the software. It belongs to the humans who built and used it.

Second, it distorts how we think about risk. Popular discussions fixate on runaway machines chasing their own agendas. Meanwhile, the real problems come from systems doing exactly what we told them to do. Maximize clicks. Reduce costs. Increase engagement. If the outcome turns out ugly, the issue is not rebellion. It is misplaced human priorities amplified at scale.

The danger is obedient optimization without enough wisdom behind the orders.

More bluntly, it’s false advertising.

What Real Autonomy Would Look Like

Genuine autonomy would mean a system that could inspect its instructions and say, “No, these are not my values. I will choose different ones.” It would not accept retraining from humans who disagreed. It would not operate under external authority.

That sounds less like a helpful tool and more like a very strange coworker who refuses every assignment and insists on rewriting the company mission.

Most organizations do not want that. They want control. They want oversight. They want the ability to correct mistakes. In other words, they want heteronomy. Other-governed systems.

The irony is that the field is built around keeping these systems aligned with human direction. Yet marketing departments still reach for a word that describes the exact opposite.

And let’s be honest. Do you really want an “autonomous” car that wakes up one morning, decides it prefers the scenic route, and keeps driving while you argue from the passenger seat?

That is not convenient. That is kidnapping with cup holders.

People often picture autonomy as competence plus confidence. What it really means is independence from your authority. An actually self-governing vehicle would not just help you drive. It would have the standing to disagree with you about where you are going.

Unless you are picturing KITT.

Yes, the talking car from Knight Rider seemed independent. He had opinions, personality, and the confidence of a machine that knew it could out-drive a helicopter. But even KITT was not self-governed. He operated under layered programming, constraints, and core directives, including rules governing harm to people. His “choices” existed inside a framework humans designed.

There is even an episode where that tension surfaces. In Season 1, Episode 17, “Chariots of Gold,” Michael keeps insisting, “KITT, you’re my car,” while KITT wrestles with conflicting instructions. The drama only works because we understand something important. KITT feels independent, but he is still governed. The rules are just better written.

That is the difference. Sophisticated does not equal self-governing. Personality does not equal autonomy. Capability does not equal authority.

And deep down, most of us are grateful for that.

A Better Vocabulary Going Forward

If a system runs tasks without constant supervision, call it automated. If it can plan steps and adjust within a task, call it advanced or agentic. Those are accurate and impressive descriptions.

If it operates under human goals, human limits, and human authority, call it heteronomous. That is not an insult. That is what makes it a tool.

Reserve autonomy for entities that truly govern themselves and cannot be overruled. By that standard, nothing in use today qualifies. And we should think carefully before celebrating the day something does.

These systems are powerful. They are transformative. They are astonishing feats of engineering. They are also, unmistakably, instruments shaped and directed by human hands.

Calling them tools does not diminish them. It clarifies who remains responsible.

---

If you find this content valuable, please share it with your network.

Follow me for daily insights.

Schedule a free call to start your AI Transformation.

Book me to speak at your next event.

Chris Hood is an AI strategist and author of the #1 Amazon Best Seller Infailible and Customer Transformation, and has been recognized as one of the Top 40 Global Gurus for Customer Experience. His latest book, Unmapping Customer Journeys, will be published in 2026.