I don't really want to get hung up on language stuff, or really I don't want to be writing giant internet essays on psycholinguistics and philosophy of mind/language. In this context, I'm mostly concerned when "technology" gets broadened to the point of uselessness (not that you went that far). In the video's talk, I think they were clearly using technology as "computers and other electronic stuff". Otherwise it should have been a discussion about, "Are techniques and tools forces for global equality?" Which I would say is a trivial "no" so far. Some of them are, sure. But on balance, no.
I never doubted that technology can improve people's situation. Cheap phones and rural solar power certainly do that. But those have nothing on what is available to people in technologically and economically advanced places. You'd need some kind of tech that uniquely helps the poor much more than it benefits the rich. And those, if they exist, are few and far between.
But you're right. Economic equality isn't all there is. If anything flattens out quality-of-life in the future, it will come from the fact that there are still people with too little food, bad sanitation, and dangerous water. If we can fix that, and add the niceties that get everyone up to the standard of, say, a Western lower middle class, that would be ridiculously fantastic.
But I guess I'm still stuck on the improvement vs equality distinction. Because new tech that helps the global poor out of their squalor tends to be either made by entrepreneurs in a developed country, is derived from tech that has already boosted developed economies, or is just not as good as something already being used in developed countries.
So I see lots of improvement happening via technology. But actual equality is still only likely to come from the global elite hitting some kind of non-technological wall.