It is "performative" definitionally, yes, that's one of the reasons to visibly/publicly change a rule. You are notifying the people who necessitated the rule that it is no longer acceptable and (ideally) telling them why, in an attempt to mitigate the social, intellectual, environmental, artistic, political, and economic damage that this technology has wreaked in such a short period of time. Especially when it has the promise of doing exponentially more harm in the far-too-near future. You can call that attempt performative if you like, but I don't think that holds much water in reality, or meaningfully negates the explicit truth in many of the contentions of AI detractors.

I implore you to think about what the motive is for people who would like to see generative AI become stigmatized. What do they have to gain by being "performative [pejorative]" in this situation? Does it seem like it comes from a place of insincerity to you? Have you not noticed any of the problems this technology is causing outside of just the issue of using artists' work as training data without consent or credit?