"I'd like to thank persons A, B, and C, who read drafts of this work and offered helpful comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, my own."
If I'm reading someone's work, I'm interested to know who they consulted during the writing and revising stage; such consultation is an important step in academic research, fosters much better writing, and is especially important when journal reviewers so often fail to give extensive comments on article submissions. Recognition of these consultations helpfully signals to the reader those with whom an author is in conversation. But I don't know why anyone would reasonably think that a mistake in the final work should be attributed to those who reviewed drafts along the way. For all the reader knows, the mistake could have been corrected by a reviewer and not incorporated into the final manuscript by the author. Or the reviewer might only have expertise in one aspect of the work and not presume to comment on another aspect of it, which may indeed turn out to be incorrect. The reviewer may also disagree with a conclusion of the author, but have the sense to realize that this is the author's paper and not the reviewer's and while the reviewer could draw attention to problems within the author's thinking, there's no sense in rewriting the paper as if it were the reviewer's own.
Reading manuscripts is a service in the profession and I think everyone recognizes it as such. I've never seen the need to include an ornamental recognition that "the buck stops with me, the author". Of course it does. Which brings me to another gripe... even worse, these acknowledgments often say, "All mistakes are, of course, my own." They refute their own reason for being!
Is this an entirely bizarre pet peeve of mine, or does this have some wider resonance with people? I'm assuming that the practice is just a matter of etiquette when it occurs, but it just doesn't strike me as a very needed clarification. The byline says who takes responsibility for the ideas. The acknowledgment says who spoke constructively with the author at some point. We don't clarify in the byline that review was sought elsewhere; I don't see why we should be redundant about genuine authorship [which entails responsibility for mistakes] in the acknowledgments note.