I’ve been looking into technology issues a lot lately, and I’m pretty sure he’s wrong, that the IT revolution has only begun to have its impact.
Sometimes he doesn't sound like a macroeconomist.

There's a model about how inflation-corrected growth happens.
The four ingredients on the macro (aggregate) level are
(1) labour
(2) capital
(3) natural resources (exploitation thereof)
(4) technology

whereas "technology" (technological progress) is the "leftover" that explains away all the growth (or shrinking) that happens after the other factors were appraised.

Technological progress is a pointless model variable for very detailed or short-term analysis, but it makes a lot of sense when you talk about decades.

I wonder why he didn't prefer to stick to technological progress instead of diving into micro here. This macro variable tells a story of a declining rate of growth, for technological progress shrinks by 0.1 to 0.2 percent points per decade. At this pace, we would run out of technological progress in about three to six generations.