To me, if "you are responsible for what you write" is to mean anything in an org, it needs to come with teeth. If you are demonstrably _not_ responsible for what you write, that needs to be recognized and treated as underperformance. I've seen a couple orgs who had some flavor of "you are responsible for what you write" guidance, and they mostly fail to follow through on it. People who ignore that guidance and ship a lot of low quality stuff (code, design docs, PRs) survive perf cycles and tend to get shout outs from management for moving quickly. People who take it to heart will tend to look slower by comparison (their work may be better, but often not in ways that are legible or compelling to management), and may be less favorably viewed when it comes to raises, promos, and so on.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the authors of that post (and enjoyed reading it), I just hope they have a good sense of how they're recognizing responsible and irresponsible use and taking that into account in a perf process.