Few things frustrate me more in AI conversations than the belief that autonomy exists in AI.

Every AI system today is an advanced form of automation. We have conflated autonomy with capability and ignored governance. True autonomy means self-rule. AI operates under human-defined goals, constraints, and oversight. By definition, it is heteronomous. We set the objectives and retain authority, so responsibility never leaves human hands.

That distinction carries consequences. Language shapes capital allocation, product strategy, governance design, and regulatory posture. When leaders label a system autonomous, they justify looser oversight, higher trust, and broader deployment. When regulators hear the word ‘autonomous,’ they interpret responsibility differently. When marketers use the word loosely, they invite legal exposure. Precision is not semantic nitpicking. It is operational risk management.

Despite my consistent pushback, I continue to hear the same five arguments offered as proof that autonomy has arrived. Each argument points to a real behavior. Systems run for long periods. They call tools. They correct outputs. They exhibit unexpected capabilities. They break goals into steps.

What these claims miss is the mechanism underneath.

Below are the five most common justifications, along with the technical realities they obscure.

Claim 1: Duration Means Autonomy

The Claim

“The system can operate for weeks without human intervention, so it is autonomous.”

The Technical Reality: Reliability

Long duration signals engineering quality. It signals automation reliability. More precisely, it’s stochastic stability, or the long-term, qualitative, and probabilistic behavior of dynamical systems subjected to random perturbations or noise, ensuring they remain bounded or converge toward equilibrium.

Humans tend to equate independence from intervention with independence of mind. If something runs on its own, we assume it decides for itself. That intuition fails here.

AI systems operate within a defined state space shaped by code and training data. However large, it remains bounded. The system selects outputs by calculating probabilities within that space. It does not revise its governing rules when reality changes.

A mechanical clock can run for years without interruption. No one calls it autonomous. It is reliable automation.

Modern AI agents are more complex but structurally similar. They optimize within probability landscapes. When confronted with out-of-distribution scenarios, they cannot step outside their architecture to question assumptions. They extrapolate within constraints.

Claim 2: Tool Selection Equals Autonomous Decision-Making

The Claim

“The agent chooses tools and what to do with them. That is autonomous decision-making.”

The Technical Reality: Heuristics

What looks like a choice is a pattern-matched API calling driven by hierarchical task network (HTN) planning or conditional execution. It’s a programming concept in which a system performs an action only if a specified condition evaluates to true. Another example of automation.

When humans select a tool, they evaluate trade-offs against a mental model of the problem. They understand material, context, and consequences. The word choice implies comprehension.

AI systems do something categorically different. The model receives input, tokenizes it, and predicts the most probable next tokens. Fine-tuning introduces tool-use templates such as “when input resembles X, call API Y.” If the query includes mathematical expressions, the probability distribution shifts toward tokens associated with invoking a Python interpreter.

Here are two quick examples of how this logic works.

1. Imagine a business trip or vacation. Do you book your hotel room first, or your flight? Is there a proper order, or a logical sequence?
2. Imagine you’re making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Do you spread peanut butter down first, or jelly? Do you layer them on the same side? Do you cut the bread into triangles before spreading jelly? What if you didn’t have a knife? What other “tool” would you use?

The system follows statistical correlations. It does not evaluate tools against a conceptual understanding of the situation. It applies heuristics encoded in training data.

A closer analogy is network routing. Internet protocols determine paths dynamically based on predefined rules and conditions. The process is adaptive and complex. No one attributes judgment to TCP/IP. It executes pattern-based routing within constraints.

Large language models function the same way. Pattern matching at scale does not become decision-making.

Claim 3: Self-Correction Means Autonomy

The Claim

“The AI realized it made a mistake, corrected its code, and tried again. It must be autonomous.”

The Technical Reality: Reflection

What appears as learning is iterative feedback through recursive reflection.

A model generates output, such as code. The code runs in a sandbox. If it fails, the resulting error message is appended to the context window. The model then processes the expanded input and predicts the next most probable sequence. Because it was trained on large volumes of code, errors, and fix examples, the predicted continuation often resembles a correction.

No realization occurred. No internal evaluation took place. The system processed new tokens that signaled failure and generated the pattern most strongly associated with them.

The underlying weights do not change in this loop. Without retraining or fine-tuning, the model accumulates no experience. Each interaction begins from the same probability landscape.

A thermostat offers a useful analogy. It measures deviation from a set point and triggers a response. That is feedback control, not awareness. AI reflection loops are more complex, but mechanistically similar.

Claim 4: Emergence Signals an Autonomous Spark

The Claim

“We did not teach it how to do this, but it figured it out.”

The Technical Reality: Latent Capabilities

What appears to be emergent behavior is what we call latent capabilities in large parameter spaces, not self-directed discovery.

Training on massive datasets with billions of parameters encodes dense statistical relationships. At scale, combinations of those relationships produce outputs that appear novel. In practice, they are interpolations across learned patterns.

Consider translation between two languages that are never directly paired in training. If both languages are statistically associated with a third language in the training data, the model can traverse those relationships. It follows probability pathways. It does not decide to learn translation.

After training, model weights are fixed. The system cannot pursue curiosity or develop new capabilities by intention. Humans probe the parameter space and discover behaviors already encoded.

In this case, emergence is a complexity-revealing structure. “New” skills are pre-existing mathematical weights in the vector space that were simply triggered by specific input patterns.

Claim 5: The System Sets Goals Autonomously

The Claim

“I gave it a vague objective, and it broke it into sub-goals. It is autonomous because it sets its own agenda.”

The Technical Reality: Decomposition

Breaking a task into steps is recursive task decomposition, not autonomous agenda formation.

When given a high-level instruction, the system predicts structured sub-tasks using patterns absorbed from training data. Complex objectives broken into steps appear frequently in human text. The model reproduces that structure.

Every sub-goal remains derivative of the human-provided objective. The system does not evaluate whether the goal is legitimate, desirable, or conflicting with other values. It accepts the prompt as a constraint and expands it.

Remove the prompt and observe what happens. An autonomous organism maintains internal drives. AI systems do nothing. They do not seek goals, preserve themselves, or express curiosity. They wait for input.

Decomposition is execution logic applied to external direction.

The Autonomy Reality Check

The table below summarizes the five claims alongside their technical realities.

Use this as a diagnostic tool. When someone describes an AI system as autonomous, ask which row applies.

The Responsibility of Precision

None of this diminishes the achievement of modern AI. These systems create real value. They accelerate workflows and extend human capability. The issue is not power. It is description.

Calling a system heteronomous does not weaken it. It clarifies it.

When metaphors harden into facts, governance drifts. Strategy follows language. Precision in words produces precision in oversight.

Three commitments follow.

First, linguistic discipline. Call automation what it is. Retire autonomy where it does not belong. Use accurate terms such as heteronomy, reliability, heuristics, reflection, and decomposition. Vocabulary shapes mental models. Mental models shape risk.

Second, governance aligned to mechanism. Every AI system operates under human-defined objectives and constraints. That is heteronomy. Oversight must reflect statistical pattern execution, not imagined agency. Audit the inputs. Audit the outputs. Keep accountability human.

Third, people first. Humans possess autonomy. AI does not. Every deployment affects people who rely on the system, work alongside it, and answer for its failures. Technology serves human judgment. When we begin serving the technology, we invert the relationship.

---

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 30 Global Gurus for Customer Experience. His latest book, Unmapping Customer Journeys, will be published in 2026.