The Greeks had a concept of technē, which you can very roughly consider equivalent to "technology," but it's an extremely tricky connection. From Pamela O. Long's Openness, Secrecy, and Authorship (which is all about how the Greeks and later peoples thought about the divisions between "knowledge-making" and "craftsmanship," and the ways in which these divisions were for most of human history enshrined in very different forms of social order, frequently not communicating with each other):
...science, technology, and even history are present-day terms whose meanings may be inappropriate or misleading for past cultures even when cognate terms exist in the diverse languages of those cultures. For example, scientia in Latin means “knowledge” in a broad sense and has none of the methodological or disciplinary meanings that we today associate with science and scientist. Similarly, the ancient Greek word technē refers to material production of all kinds, from making soup to constructing catapults, and the reasoning associated with that production. The term mechanical arts, which came into use between the ninth and twelfth centuries, included painting and sculpture as well as the construction and operation of machines. It engages a complex of meanings quite different from those of the modern word technology.
For Aristotle, there were three areas of human activity:
technē: material and technical production
praxis: political or military action
epistemē: theoretical knowledge or knowledge about unchanging things
Is technē equivalent to "technology"? Sort of. The fact that the Greeks saw it as a separate area of human activity does connect somewhat with a modern sensibility (though most modern people think of technology as the output and not the practice or mindset that leads to it). But again technē is more akin to "crafts" from a labor perspective. Aristotle though that technē was the stuff of tinkerers and gardeners, whereas epistemē was the stuff of philosophers. So that's not quite how we'd see it today. (Again, all of this comes from Long, whose book is essentially about all of these questions from Antiquity through the Renaissance.)
So calling Hephaestus a "god of technology" (he was a god of craftsmen, metallurgy, and several other practical skills) is a bit of an ahistorical gloss. Similarly calling Talos a "robot" is taking a modern concept and applying it backwards. That is not to say you cannot talk productively about the concept of automata and perhaps even robots in Antiquity (see E.R. Truitt's Medieval Robots), but to do so in a slapdash way owes more to trying to make these things seem relevant to a modern viewer than doing good historical work.
I would also note that when you ask, "did X have a concept of technology?" and you do not define technology yourself, you set yourself up for tricky answers. Most people have not thought about what "technology" means — it is a favorite exercise of mine to try and come up with a good definition of "technology" in my introductory courses that I teach to engineers at an institute of technology. They usually start with very bad definitions ("applications of science" — no; "stuff that makes the world better" — clearly no). Through some wrangling and prodding I generally get them to arrive at a Heideggerean conception of "technology" (a mindset that results in the delineation of a "natural" and "non-natural" world, with the former subjected to human benefit through modification) but that isn't where almost anybody starts. (For Heidegger, see The Question Concerning Technology.) Which is only to say: I am not sure most modern people have a "concept of technology" other than associating the word with what is more properly called "high technology," and even then they think of it as the outputs (the gadgets, etc.) and not the concept of technology itself (which is far deeper and more complicated). "Technology" is much trickier than it seems, even today.