I didn't feel like the comment was arguing about the quality of the articles, but more the notion of how reading an article about some point in time progress of some early thing feels useless: what you want is to follow the thing. It is like if you hear about some new piece of software when it is just some proof of concept and it won't be a "real thing" for three years but you want to follow it so you can keep learning about it and watch its progress... so you watch its git repository or subscribe to its mailing list or whatever, and you can do that; but with science, the process--which at the milestones of publishing feels very open--is usually some weird closed competitive process.