I feel this way too, but I often find those circulating articles are in mainstream media by people who don't understand what they're reporting on or in "science will cure everything" blogs. However, this is a summary posted on one of the most respected journals in the world's website. The article/study it is summarizing was peer reviewed and developed by scientists at some of the world's top institutions. Sure, we shouldn't get caught up in reputation as a marker of quality, but at the same time it does count for something... this is not the same as most of the breathless articles that I see circulate on social media.
I didn't feel like the comment was arguing about the quality of the articles, but more the notion of how reading an article about some point in time progress of some early thing feels useless: what you want is to follow the thing. It is like if you hear about some new piece of software when it is just some proof of concept and it won't be a "real thing" for three years but you want to follow it so you can keep learning about it and watch its progress... so you watch its git repository or subscribe to its mailing list or whatever, and you can do that; but with science, the process--which at the milestones of publishing feels very open--is usually some weird closed competitive process.
