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.
Possibly for some things and possibly not for others. It's hard to say. The upsides and downsides are very apples-and-oranges.
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.
Predictions and prescriptions are different things. E.g. they said that recorded music would cause fewer people to sing and perform in their own homes. This happened, but we're all largely just fine with it.
