I'm sorry, but when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology? You might as well say we can prevent climate change by just saying no to the outcome!
We no longer use chemicals harmful to the ozone layer on spray cans.
We no longer use lead in gasoline.
We figured those things were bad, and changed what we did. If evidence is available ahead of time that something is harmful, it shouldn't be controversial to avoid widespread adoption.
> when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology?
The closest might be nuclear power, we know we can do it, we did it, but lots of places said no to it, and further developments have vastly slowed down.
The man who invented it got lead poisoning during its development, multiple people died of lead poisoning in a pilot plant manufacturing it and public health and medical authorities warned against prior to it being available for sale to the general public.
If we as a society keep developing potential existential threats to ourselves without mitigating them then we are destined for disaster eventually.
At some level, there's a disaster-seeking function inside us all acting as an evolutionary propellant.
You might make an argument that "AI" is an evolutionary embodiment of our conscious minds that's designed to escape these more subconscious trappings.