> Yes, you could make the same mistake without auto, but it's easier to notice.

Is it really? I rather think that a missing & is easier to spot with "auto" simply because there is less text to parse for the eye.

> If you see "for (auto v : vec)" looks good right?

For me the missing & sticks out like a sore thumb.

> It's easy to forget (or not notice) that auto will not resolve to a reference in this case

Every feature can be misused if the user forgets how it works. I don't think people suddenly forget how "auto" works, given how ubiquitous it is.