Naysaying fault finding and challenging norms serves to help people think through the problem and assess what might go wrong before it does.
This, while an amusing bot who poopoos every idea serves to critize without thought.
This isn't to downplay the work or amusement value, but people need to critically think through their ideas and think how will this fail, why isn't this a good idea, have we tried this before, if so how can we not fail the same way. If the bot could be taught the experience of the sage greybeards without the immediate I didn't think of it so I don't like it, this would move from novelty amusement to practical.
This project does seem to the play into the “criticism is negativity” trope that some teams (and, generally, egos) fall into. It’s possible to be tight-knit, respectful, empathetic, and openly questioning.
(Neat project!)