Depends on what you mean by correct. Do you think the world would be better if those anti-technology people succeeded and the technologies did not come to be?
A world without steam engines, cars, computers, printing presses.
A world without steam engines, cars, computers, printing presses.
The point isn't that the world would be objectively better in every case, but rather that the arguments of "anti-technology people" are frequently rational (and often don't even necessitate an elimination of the technology in question), and using their name as a cudgel as if they were cavemen is a low-quality rhetorical trope haunting all conversation about writing that is critical of AI.
It's also a distraction. If the topic is AI, then it's better to simply talk about the ups and downs of AI than the ups and downs of e.g. cars.