[zero_k]

Yes, agree. At the same time, it's what these top-tier universities are known for: presenting something relatively simple as if it was ground-breaking, but in a way that the average person can (or has a better chance to) understand it. I am still unsure whether the communication quality has such added value. But people seem to like it, so here we are.

[pxc]

There's a difference between a reliable hunch and really knowing something. What is obvious is not always (or even usually) easy to prove. And the process of proving the obvious sometimes turns up useful little surprises.

[InkCanon]

I do think there's value in science communication, but it does take an intelligent understanding of it on a case by case basis as to whether it's genuine or hype marketing.

Side note: talking to someone from such a "elite" university, I discovered many labs in these unis have standing orders by PIs to tweet their papers/preprints when published. Varies by field, in AI it is by far the most common.