"Cybernetics" as a descriptor went out of style by the 2000's I think. Prior to that, you can find writing from ideologues/philosophers/academics who grasped what tech would look like and put it through analytical frameworks wrt its impact on systems outside of tech. I think they were able to do this because by the 1960's, the capabilities of tech were becoming clear if to someone in the right networks or from the right background. Pair that with the 1950's-1980's generating some heavyweight philosophers like Albert Camus (although idk if he ever wrote about tech) or writers like Huxley who blur the line a bit, and you can find some really interesting insight on tech.
The cybernetics writers did a good job of understanding that tech would change everything in some fundamental and abstract sense, so they focused meta-analysis to cohere the "so what" of it all (impact on ethics, governance, politics, sociology). An example is analyzing the trend in tech of `if system is discovered -> then attempt to codify and automate it.` This provides some scaffolding for thinking through AI-driven governance, for instance, but with a little more intellectual rigor than a substack article. It's similar to the value-add of reading really good sci-fi, but this time from Camus or Nietzche versus William Gibson or Neil Stephenson.
If you feel that our times warrants some level of serious analysis, find like there's a general void of comprehension outside of small pockets and policy circles, and therefore decide to settle for pulling insights from a sort of disappointing blend of cypherpunk writing, Peter Thiel-isms, Lex Fridman interviews, and Andrew Yang because at least "they get the big picture of what tech will do": writing on cybernetics is good to check out.