The fact that someone said something that turned out to be wrong 40 years ago is not the best reason to conclude there is a need for a product nobody seems to be buying. One could build a 786 GB single socket computer today, using 128 GB sticks. At $15,000 each. Doesn't seem to be that much call for it.
In those 40 years, CPU speed has increased by about 100,000 and memory capacity by around 40,000. The ratio is more or less constant. That's what I mean by balance. You're asking about a technology that would reduce the CPU/memory ratio by an order of magnitude. I don't see a reason for that.
You might also consider what you are putting into that terabyte. If it's coming from disk, you will need of order an hour just to fill the memory. If you don't need all of it, it's more efficient to read it when you need it. If you need all of it once, it's more efficient to read it from disk. If you need some of it more than once, but you don't know ahead of time which parts you need, memory will help, but there are efficient cache algorithms that don't need to cache all of it, and faster and parallel disk systems to reduce the penalty of a cache miss. For $90,000 you can buy a lot of speed-up.
If, on the other hand, you're using this memory to save the results of calculations, that argues for a higher CPU/memory ratio, not lower.