I feel unsure about the merits of this for other contexts (because it can indeed create a toxic atmosphere), but I think there are specific contexts where scrutinizing someone’s decision-making algorithm seems particularly important:
Somewhat unilateral pursuit of an activity with high downside risk
Position of high influence without much accountability or legibility for outsiders to give useful criticism
Heading an alignment organization with strong information security where you have enough control so that it’s unusual compared to other organizations fulfils both criteria.
So, I’d say that not discussing the topic in contexts similar to this one would be a mistake.
I feel unsure about the merits of this for other contexts (because it can indeed create a toxic atmosphere), but I think there are specific contexts where scrutinizing someone’s decision-making algorithm seems particularly important:
Somewhat unilateral pursuit of an activity with high downside risk
Position of high influence without much accountability or legibility for outsiders to give useful criticism
Heading an alignment organization with strong information security where you have enough control so that it’s unusual compared to other organizations fulfils both criteria.
So, I’d say that not discussing the topic in contexts similar to this one would be a mistake.
I’d add to that bullet list:
Severe conflicts of interest are involved.