I think why there's interest is because the way they're implemented in Go is a nice intersection between duck typing and type safety.
In most type safe languages (eg. java), you explicitly have to say that you want your goose to pretend to be a duck.
In most type unsafe languages (eg. python), you don't have a way (or, at least without type annotations) to say what features you need to pretend to be a duck.
You're not wrong. That's what Go is about: Well tried techniques, implemented with well practiced knowledge.