Ehhhhh, I'll say it's substantive and not just pure hype.
Yes the AI "resurfaced" the work, but it also incorporated the Russian's theory into the practical design. At least enough to say "hey make sure you look at this" - this means the system produced a workable-something w/ X% improvement, or some benefit that the researchers took it seriously and investigated. Obviously, that yielded an actual design with 10-15% improvement and a "wish we had this earlier" statement.
AFAICT the "AI" didn't "pay attention to the work" either. They built a representation of a set of possible experiments, defined an objective function quantifying what they wanted to optimise and used gradient descent to find the best experiment according to that objective function.
If I've understood it right, calling this AI is a stretch and arguably even misleading. Gradient descent is the primary tool of machine learning, but this isn't really using it the way machine learning uses it. It's more just an application of gradient descent to an optimisation problem.
The article and headline make it sound like they asked an LLM to make an experiment and it used some obscure Russian technique to make a really cool one. That isn't true at all. The algorithm they used had no awareness of the Russian research, or of language, or experimental design. It wasn't "trained" in any sense. It was just a gradient descent program. It's the researchers that recognised the Russian technique when analyzing the experiment the optimiser chose.
Yes the AI "resurfaced" the work, but it also incorporated the Russian's theory into the practical design. At least enough to say "hey make sure you look at this" - this means the system produced a workable-something w/ X% improvement, or some benefit that the researchers took it seriously and investigated. Obviously, that yielded an actual design with 10-15% improvement and a "wish we had this earlier" statement.
No one was paying attention to the work before.