I've recently seen two talks on how Moore's Law is alive and kicking, by none other than Jim Keller and (IIRC) a chief scientist at TSMC. Wonder why this notion of Moore's Law dying stays so pervasive.
-- A microsoft exec I cannot recall!
At the same time, businesses that design specialized architectures, or work on alternative devices have been publishing things about the End of Moore's Law for a long time [1], since it means that their 2x improvement of the day won't be obliterated by next year's Moore's law jump.
[1]: E.g, this article from 2000, saying that the "End of Moore's Law" is why their research is relevant https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-306-47013-...
The technical definition of Moore's Law is still standing, but it's relevance has retreated into areas where relatively few people notice. E.g. massively multi-core server chips and flagship phone SoCs.
Here's what I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA&t=1805s (94min, jump to 30m for Mr. Keller discussing Moore's law and his interpretation of it.)
Jim Keller: Moore's Law, Microprocessors, Abstractions, and First Principles | AI Podcast Lex Fridman, host.
Moore’s Law is Not Dead Wednesday, September 18, 2019