The machine in your scenario is just relaying human intent.

In retrospect my comment feels a bit nitpicky, I appreciate your levelheaded approach!

[dead]

Which is to say, not at all?

A hammer isn’t subservient, it doesn’t have the capacity to be. Saying a hammer is subservient is stretching the definition for literary flourish, but it doesn’t actually make a lot of sense.

The definition that came up for subservient when I checked was “prepared to obey others unquestioningly“.

It's widely hypothesized that dogs anthropomorphized themselves, so to speak, accentuating their expressive eyes and eyebrows over generations to be more human-like in how they communicate. And very few humans today view their dogs as pure working tools -- most at least say "good boy".

The apple dictionary says the word means "prepared to obey others unquestioningly."

I don't think an inanimate object is capable of "obeying." Or at least that is a very strange way to refer to the act of using a tool.

I really do feel like “power tool” is the ultimate metaphor for these things. Their interface naturally confuses us into anthropomorphising them, but once you stop treating them like intelligent agents and start treating them with the same wariness, respect and intent you show to your table saw, the fun begins.

You’re still anthropomorphizing.

They’re not communicating, you’re just being observant.