I've definitely seen many examples of papers where the conclusions went far beyond what the actual results warranted. Scientists are incentivized to claim their discovery generalizes as much as possible.

But yes, it's normally: "science paper says an experiment in mice shows promising results in cancer treatment" then "University PR says a new treatment for cancer is around the corner" and "Media says cure for all cancer"

Depends on what you call "overhype".

Wishful mnemonics in the field was called out by Drew McDermott in the mid 1970's and it is still a problem today.

https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/irm/mcdermott.pdf

And:

> As a field, I believe that we tend to suffer from what might be called serial silver bulletism, defined as follows: the tendency to believe in a silver bullet for AI, coupled with the belief that previous beliefs about silver bullets were hopelessly naive.

(H. J. Levesque. On our best behaviour. Artificial Intelligence, 212:27–35, 2014.)

Fair point!