Backlash against Arxiv's proposed 1 year ban is genuinely perplexing. [D]

Anyone else surprised at the enormous amount of backlash against Arxiv's proposed 1 year ban for authors and coauthors publishing papers with hallucinated reference and other obvious LLM/Gen AI artifacts?
https://x.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055
https://xcancel.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055

Some of the responses:

1. "This is the age of AI, Arxiv should be part of the movement instead of holding onto the old ways"

2. "The P.I. is a macro-manager, not a micro-manager, can't be expected to read every reference that his/her student puts in."

3. "I publish 20+ papers a year with my students, how do you expect me to read everything?"

4. "What about teams with 100s of people? How can you expect the authors to check references?"

5. "Who reads references in depth anyways!?"

These responses are very revealing how academia works. Apparently people have just been slapping names on research papers they've never even read or fact-checked themselves. Very obscene!