If you read the history of major scientific discoveries, this has been the case for a long time. There are many things that were independently discovered by different people at nearly the same time. Once people know something is solved or solvable, it gets a relentless amount of focus.
I'd say it illustrates well that this last piece, the person celebrated for the achievement, is disproportionally overvalued and the rest of the work they are standing on is disproportionally ignored.
I always like to bring up how many decades of research, how many hundreds of years of entire PhD-theses, how many sleepless nights were used up to generate all the protein structure data that made up the corpus of Protein Data Bank - that was then hovered up by the AlphaFold team, and guess who got the Nobel Prize...
Every laureate stands on the shoulder of giants which is their field as a generations-spanning body of researchers. They did the last step and get recognized. The good ones acknowledge that in their acceptance speeches.
And don't forget that AlphaFold worked because of sequence data (similarly laboriously collected by a large number of people).
A big part of the problem is that we award prizes to the small number of people who do something first, or who were in charge- the LIGO NP should have been awarded to the entire consortium, not Kip Thorne and a couple other people under this logic.
On a tangent, the genius of people like eg Einstein is not so much that he came up with all these things: other people were close, but that he was a singular individual that did all of these discoveries, instead of five different guys all making some breakthrough here or there.