Last I checked most objective scientific writing didn't come with a hype machine attached.
I think what upsets a lot of people is the attitude. But a bad attitude can still accompany good work, so I excuse Wolfram for his quirks. That acceptance is essential when dealing with people who know they are much smarter than the average person.
While at NYU, I saw Wolfram speak while on his big book tour. There were a few big brains at the Courant Institute that leveled major criticisms at the book. Unfortunately, there was another talk about nonlinear PDEs that most of the critics elected to attend in place of watching Wolfram. Wolfram started the talk by saying, "well, the important people aren't here to see this, but I suppose I'll continue anyway".
As one of the hoi polloi, I found the remark amazingly conceited, probably correct, and a bit charming at the same time.
Wolfram has used his business to unduly promote his research. There is a huge difference between him and a professor making the rounds.
That his research was funded through success in the market rather than government subsidies doesn't imply any 'unduliness' to me, but attitudes may vary.
CA produce complex/unpredictable results[n]
[n] Wolfram, S. NKoS
So yes, it's referred to a lot but I don't see anything very deep.I think the problem people have with this book is that it was hailed as the second coming before it came out and that SW had been in his basement for the past 5 years discovering CAs that ran the universe.
What it actually turned out to be was a thousand pages of examples/cataloguing CAs and the /suggestion/ that this is how the universe works rather than anything to prove it.