> So he purposely narrows the definition of a tool, and exclude autonomous things from it.
You can define "tool" anyway you like but for the purpose of this conversation "tool" is anything that can do some kind of work but isn't a human. That is, start with defining "human" and then consider the non-biological entities that do work for us, there's no need for defining "tool". Then ask yourself, is an autonomous car/tractor/drone/etc a human?
Further, consider the simple fact that "human work" is an accidental chore reluctantly performed for the needs of human survival but it doesn't define what human is in any way (animals do work too). Hopefully, this can help you to stop conflating "work" and "human".
You can define "tool" anyway you like but for the purpose of this conversation "tool" is anything that can do some kind of work but isn't a human. That is, start with defining "human" and then consider the non-biological entities that do work for us, there's no need for defining "tool". Then ask yourself, is an autonomous car/tractor/drone/etc a human?
Further, consider the simple fact that "human work" is an accidental chore reluctantly performed for the needs of human survival but it doesn't define what human is in any way (animals do work too). Hopefully, this can help you to stop conflating "work" and "human".