As an academic, I don't think this would stick as it makes it hard to refer to papers in a common way (if you're chatting with your team).

Referring to something like the "Lin transformers paper" or the "Vaswani attention paper" is easy to get people onto a common ground. If you randomise the authors, you'd need to fall back to full paper titles, and long paper titles aren't particularly evocative.

Randomisation may be fine for citation (particularly numbered citation formats like[0], where the names are only in the bibliography), but even then, you are breaking the flow of thought. If someone references an article like "blah blah(mayford 2020)", then for those familiar with the field you can more easily continue reading without having to break your chain of thought to jump to the bibliography and figure out what paper that was.

edit ----

a further thought... referring by TEAM might be alright, but falls down when you're multidisciplinary. e.g. you might refer to the "Deepmind" paper, or the "Facebook llm paper"...but my area of research is agritech so we work with animal scientists from a different institution. Do we refer to both teams? 'The google/meta paper'? Again, you're likely to just fall back to whatever is the first author or institution in your mind.