They have certainly left the impression among many in the general public that we are close to commercializing this. Here's an example:
https://www.cbs58.com/news/wisconsin-reacts-to-breakthrough-... "In terms of the physics, we are basically there, and the rest of it, at some level, is just engineering," he said.
It is not an engineering problem, they haven't solved half the physics still. You can't just tell the fuel pellets to burn hotter please, would you mind transferring your energy to this battery on the way out, they have none of the required steps to do this yet.
Once it's actually possible to get net positive energy, then yes by all means engineer away the inefficiencies, before that it's still as much a pipe dream.
We don't need to just solve fusion. We need to produce fusion in a manner that undercuts the price of fossil fuels. Then stack "renewable" on top of that. Sociologically, people operate on self interest and will in-group into team Fossil Fuels, Team Wind/Solar and we might even end up with Team Fossil Fuels and Team Wind/Solar forming an alliance to oppose Team Fusion.
Of course, outwardly and individually we play make believe that we are all impartial 3rd party observers that just want the best for Team Human. It is those self interested jerks on the other team that are the problem. Never you and I.
In reality though we are still far away from engineers being able to take over, even now. Because we need way more than 1.5x coming out of fusion in order to compensate for the inefficiencies in generating laser from electricity, and also the inefficiencies in converting heat output into electricity.
> For that reason, and others, Chang says using this type of fusion as a clean energy source is likely decades away. But he says a fusion-powered future is coming.
So that would be a "no".
We need both engineering advances, and a better scientific understanding of plasma behaviors, new materials, etc.