@scheidegger oof. no. and it isn't like your paper is that difficult to understand, esp. in its CACM version.
I've definitely seen it cited in some pretty superficial ways. Like just cite it, claim to make a WAE assumption, move forward without engaging in the deep interrogation needed to figure out what an WAE assumption would really, plausibly look like in this case, etc.
but chronic failure to engage with the substance of an argument is endemic to academia. very sadly.