I guess I'm skeptical. This sounds more like an optimization of current technology than something along the lines of vacuum tubes -> transistors.
The next really significant boost is likely something like optical transistors, memristors, analog computing, bio-electrical computing, or anything that is highly divergent from the current base concept.
I mean, if the organization of the current basic idea of silicon and the software can align with a compute-in-memory paradigm, I guess that would be more than incremental in a way. But the lady seems to be talking about doing that in still kind of a half-assed way as far as that part.
That's 5 orders of magnitude in cost over 56 years, with the only "paradigm shift" being "we can now fit the whole functionality on 1 IC".
To resume "Moore's Law" at the pace it once was, we need some of the truly new paradigms to mature. Ideas like memristors or optical transistors.
You could even imagine something like a ubiquitous transparent P2P background computing grid as a big shift in software that could matter.
But for hardware, the next paradigm that brings a few orders of magnitude boost to the baseline is going to actually be a.. different paradigm.
That's not really Moore's law, though; it's changing how you use the transistors rather than how many you get.