[burnished]

My experience doing that is that this is not common practice - talking about following up on a reference to find it actually refutes a claim, or more commonly that a citation has little to do with what it is being cited for (more extrapolation than a completely inappropriate use).

I agree with your should, but I do not think it is a realistic expectation right now.

[falcor84]

As I see it, even if the only positive impact the ChatGPT ends up having on the world is in forcing researchers to double-check citations, then "mission fucking accomplished".

[quantified]

There are so many garbage papers in various venues that maybe it's a good idea. It forces readers to check them too, this puts them all on the lookout.