RK's estimates are consistently best case estimates. But even if his estimates are wrong by a couple of decades, a lot can still happen before 2050.
What the prediction was trying to gauge is how much a computer that is equivalent in computational power to a human brain would cost. I think a case could be made that the human brain's computational power is not equaled by the faster supercomputer today, at which point he was off by several orders of magnitude (in terms of price).
Of course, tensor operations do not map 1:1 vs FLOPS, even for AI problems. On the other hand, tensor oriented hardware is currently getting faster at a higher rate than traditional GPU's.
But RK's prediction did assume that we would have reached full 3d chip manufacturing processes by now, and we may not be able to have human brain levels of performance on a single die until we do, which looks like it will take 5-10 years.
When LINPACK measures FLOPS, it doesn't count how many instructions the computer executed. It uses a formula for how many floating-point operations it takes to solve an NxN linear equation and combines that with how long it took the computer to execute. So NVidia's tensor instructions actually contribute tens of operations per instruction retired.
The prediction is attempting to model when a computer will exceed human computational power, which was estimated by Ray Kurzweil at 20PFLOPS, although it's unclear to me if we was specifically thinking of LINPACK Rmax or some other metric.