This article examines the debate surrounding the classification of autonomous systems as mere tools within the legal framework. Critics argue that this classification represents a “legal fiction,” failing to reflect the autonomous and decision-making capabilities of such systems in practice. By contrast, this paper defends the Mere Tools perspective, contending that it aligns with technological realities and preserves the foundational principles of accountability. The analysis begins by exploring the origins of the “legal fiction” critique, highlighting concerns about responsibility attribution and the evolving role of autonomous systems. It then addresses these critiques, demonstrating that autonomous systems, despite their advanced capabilities, remain extensions of human agency and operate within the parameters established by their designers and users. The paper concludes by affirming that the Mere Tools theory offers a realistic and justifiable framework for integrating autonomous systems into existing legal structures without compromising accountability or predictability. This discussion contributes to the broader discourse on how the law should adapt to emerging technologies.