Yes it has and 5E didn't change that of what i can see rules still get interpretated as they are written with the new system, its just that some rules are written with less clarity and thus are more open to interpretations, including varying ones, because of their imprecisions.
RAW is an excercise of interpretation of rules-as-written, and some rules have multiple RAWs instead of just one. This IMO create more problem than it solve any, because the less interpretation variation a rule or game element has, the less argument about its functioning there usually is IMX. To take a simple exemple, nobody argues how Shove works because it has only one interpretation of how its resolution works and its usually adjucated the same way across all tables.
Personally i prefer clearer rules as they more easily fade into the background IMO, being less of a source of arguments. While 4E had its goods and bads, the clarity of its rules made it, among all of them, the edition with which my group had the less arguments at the table and i'm probably not the only one.
I prefer DM interpretations to come into play for rules or situations not covered by the books, not for unclear rules functioning or interactions purposefully written so that they're more obscure and subject to (mis)interpretations. While i really like 5E, it's probably one of my biggest gripe about it.