IMO, as an NLP researcher, it's a product of the "fast science" culture of AI where there are more papers than anyone could possibly read even in a given subfield at a particular conference, and an "old" paper is anything that was published over two years ago. (Who knew Bollywood movies and AI publications would have so much in common?) Maybe there are good reasons why publications should move so much more quickly in AI as opposed to, say, scholastic philosophy, but it's undeniable that it has become a struggle to get others to even read an abstract of your work, and as such we should not be surprised when sensationalization verges on becoming a requirement for your work to get engagement.

So to answer your question--perhaps cynically--“Tiered memory layers to provide extended AI context windows” is not the best title you could have for an AI paper because it has all the rizz of a shipping manifest. If you want to maximize citations, you need to market more.

I also considered whether to blame the field's very young reviewer population for not having the proper disdain for sensationalization that I'd expect from an older researcher who would surely have more restraint than to speak so much more of the sizzle than of the steak, but then I remembered that the paper which introduced the Transformer model was titled "Attention Is All You Need".