What makes you think that "cyborg" means "foot replaced with hoverboard" and not things like "memory augmented with curated database" or "though process augmented with numeric-error-free calculation"?
Note that children do need interaction to learn to speak, but it is not taught to them in the sense that writing is, it is a natural instinct that they need social interaction to exercise (and they of course need to learn a particular firm of speech, i.e. one or more spoken or signed languages).
Though such experiments can't be carried out because they would risk being monstrous, it's quite possible that a group of babies growing up together with no spoken or signed interactions from their parents would still create a language of their own.
> Speech is not "a technology", it is a natural human ability ... of course need to learn a particular firm of speech, i.e. one or more spoken or signed languages).
So change that to "... 'technologies' so deeply integrated that our brains have changed to accommodate for them. For example: writing and language". AIUI, research suggests language has warped our brains.
Adding to my previous examples, we also know that children can only natively learn particular structures of language, both in terms of grammar and phonology. You couldn't create a completely artificial lagauge and teach it natively to a child, they will be unable to learn the grammar and words, and they will sort of snap it back to a natural grammar and phonology.
Another good piece of proof is that you can't teach an animal language, even those that can be taught to use certain tools, or even to create tools of their own. You could probably create a group of chimpanzees that can use bows and arrows, and can share that knowledge from one generation to the next. But you can't teach even a single chimpanzee to use language in the sense that we do, even though every (healthy) human child learns it on their own within the first few years of life.