> I feel that a lot of information they present is purposely misinterpreted by their teams for media or pr/clout or who knows what reasons.

I think it's just the culture of machine learning research at this point. Academics are better about it, but still far from squeaky clean. It can't be squeaky clean, because if you aren't willing to make grand overinflated claims to help attract funding, someone else will be, and they'll get the research funding, so they'll be the ones who get to publish research.

It's like an anthropic principle of AI research. (rimshot)