I think it is a wild misunderstanding of how academic research works to say that the first demonstration of a concept is equal to all further work on a concept. It is like saying that the Human Genome Project isn't recent work because the structure of DNA was discovered in 1953.
I would say there is a difference between development that significantly change the way we look at things and adapting known principals to changing demands.. Where exactly that boundary lays is, I admit, murky at best.
I think you could make a point that it would be a practical implementation of the "Infinite Monkey Theorem" made practical by extension of Moore's law.. I think the original author expresses disappointment in the lack of fundamental new developments in system research and he has a point. Then again the wheel hasn't changed much in recent history either..
I suspect you're not very familiar with modern fuzzing research because improvements in this area are definitely not simply a manifestation of Moore's law. Many clever and rather fundamental advancements have been invented and implemented here; for instance, the combination of symbolic execution with concrete execution known as concolic testing.