Journalists, entrepreneurs, and even some public relations professionals will tell you that the PR process is broken (buy me a drink sometime, and I’ll give you my rant). But could AI actually make things better?

Honeyjar, which will be attending this week’s TechCrunch Disrupt as part of the Startup Battlefield 200, wants to use AI to make the expertise and judgment of the best PR pros available to everyone, including founders who have no idea where to start.

The startup’s founders, CEO Michelle Masek and Chief Communications Officer Nadia Jamshidi, certainly fit the bill when it comes to PR expertise. They’ve both spent decades in the field, doing in-house communications and working at agencies. Masek recently served as senior vice president of marketing and communications for Ev Williams’ venture firm, Obvious Ventures.

As Masek described the challenges involved in “helping with the why and when of comms and marketing for 110 portfolio companies” (the startups her firm had invested in), I flashed back to my own brief stint leading marketing at an early-stage VC firm, where founders were constantly asking for help getting into TechCrunch. So I wasn’t surprised that Masek found herself asking, “Is there a way to scale the senior-level expertise into AI [in a way] that actually helps users do the work of comms in the proactive and skilled way that we do?”

Honeyjar is her answer to that question. It automates processes like writing announcements, finding the best journalists to pitch, and identifying the most promising speaking opportunities. But Jamshidi told me in a follow-up email that Honeyjar’s vision goes beyond getting press coverage and beyond specific AI tools.

“Honeyjar can find reporters, build media lists, scan news and social, track coverage, and surface opportunities,” she said. “Those capabilities are important, but they’re just one piece of what we’re building. The bigger idea is bringing the whole communications workflow together: signals, context, strategy, judgment, timing, and execution.”

And it’s not just for founders. Masek said she’s come to realize there are “millions and millions of unassigned communicators responsible for the work of comms.”

“They don’t have the title of comms, but they’re marketers, investors, authors, creators, school superintendents, sports team leaders,” she added. “It’s incredibly horizontal, this need to nail strategic communications. It’s always passed around, but the problems are very often not solved.”

Nor is Honeyjar trying to replace PR professionals. Masek said she and Jamshidi built the tool they wanted to use themselves. She argued that Honeyjar can make PR firms and in-house comms teams more effective, while allowing individual PR practitioners to “take on that third client without any scaling cost.”

When Honeyjar opened its waitlist, it received 10,000 signups in the first 24 hours, said Masek. Beta testers include Nextdoor, tech startup Coco Robotics, investor Bloomberg Beta, and agencies Mission North and Full Picture.

That sounds promising for companies looking to get more attention, but it could be a nightmare for journalists. We receive more pitches than we can respond to, many of them already written by AI chatbots.

When I raised my fears about getting inundated with even more PR slop, Masek noted that while Honeyjar can draft a pitch email or a social media post in the customer’s voice, the customer actually has to hit send or publish.

“We never want a world where the human is removed from the loop,” she said.

And that’s also where judgment is key. Masek said she and Jamshidi tried to “infuse and encode Honeyjar with our wisdom.” Through a broader initiative called the Comms Lab, they’re now training the product on the judgment of other PR pros as well.

“For us, judgment is knowing what to do, what not to do, when to act, and how to adapt to the situation,” Jamshidi added. “That comes from understanding a company’s goals and priorities, what’s happening inside and outside the organization, and knowing what to say, to whom, where, and when.”

In some cases, Masek said Honeyjar might even tell a founder that they’re simply not ready for coverage.

“We hear from reporters all the time who want better pitches, who want to hear from experts directly,” she said. “We actually see a future where there are more credible pitches in your inbox from sources who you actually want to hear from.”

Microsoft President Brad Smith is calling for urgent regulation of AI, and his argument is that consumer products like milk and washing machines have more oversight than the companies building artificial intelligence.

On a recent BBC podcast, Smith called AI both a “weapon and a tool” that is putting the world’s cybersecurity at risk, and said the “moment has arrived” to institute global safety rules.

Smith also said the U.K., and not the U.S. or European Union, is best placed to lead on global safety rules. Britain’s AI Security Institute, launched in 2023, receives access to major models from U.S. frontier labs before they are deployed and has quickly become a leader in AI safety testing. 

That role has been under threat in recent weeks, with U.S. President Donald Trump warning against “globalist” organizations, which he claims are interfering with American companies. Last month, he reportedly asked Anthropic and OpenAI to withhold new models from British testers, but AISI confirmed on Monday that it is able to access and test the latest models. 

Despite the president’s pushback, however, Smith argued the U.K. can regulate AI in ways that the U.S. cannot. 

“In Washington, D.C., people don’t look at the U.K. and they don’t look at London the way they look at Brussels,” he told the BBC. “That’s a strength.”

His comments come amid rallying cries from tech leaders, including Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, to slow the pace of AI development in the wake of several incidents where AI agents went rogue.

Last month, Trump hosted tech leaders of companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, Meta and Google at the White House to discuss AI safety. They signed a “morally binding” document in which they agreed to work with “independent auditors” to assess the safety and capabilities of their AI models. 

Smith says the document is a “good step,” but it stops short of the type of regulation that is necessary. The problem with voluntary self-regulation, he said, is that the “good companies” will comply. 

“It’s the companies that are not as responsible that you need to worry about,” he said.

Smith outlined several AI safety rules he’d like to see put into place, like a legal obligation to alert an organization if its system was breached by rogue AI agents. He also appears to be in favor of AI labs getting the approval of outside evaluators before an AI product is released, and spoke positively about kill-switches to pause or slow down AI if humans lose control of it. 

“Let’s speak calmly, maybe even softly, but firmly, and start to bring people together,” Smith said. “I hope that’s the role we can play as a company. I hope that’s the role the U.K. can play as a country.”

Microsoft President Brad Smith is calling for urgent regulation of AI, and his argument is that consumer products like milk and washing machines have more oversight than the companies building artificial intelligence.

On a recent BBC podcast, Smith called AI both a “weapon and a tool” that is putting the world’s cybersecurity at risk, and said the “moment has arrived” to institute global safety rules.

Smith also said the U.K., and not the U.S. or European Union, is best placed to lead on global safety rules. Britain’s AI Security Institute, launched in 2023, receives access to major models from U.S. frontier labs before they are deployed and has quickly become a leader in AI safety testing. 

That role has been under threat in recent weeks, with U.S. President Donald Trump warning against “globalist” organizations, which he claims are interfering with American companies. Last month, he reportedly asked Anthropic and OpenAI to withhold new models from British testers, but AISI confirmed on Monday that it is able to access and test the latest models. 

Despite the president’s pushback, however, Smith argued the U.K. can regulate AI in ways that the U.S. cannot. 

“In Washington, D.C., people don’t look at the U.K. and they don’t look at London the way they look at Brussels,” he told the BBC. “That’s a strength.”

His comments come amid rallying cries from tech leaders, including Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, to slow the pace of AI development in the wake of several incidents where AI agents went rogue.

Last month, Trump hosted tech leaders of companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, Meta and Google at the White House to discuss AI safety. They signed a “morally binding” document in which they agreed to work with “independent auditors” to assess the safety and capabilities of their AI models. 

Smith says the document is a “good step,” but it stops short of the type of regulation that is necessary. The problem with voluntary self-regulation, he said, is that the “good companies” will comply. 

“It’s the companies that are not as responsible that you need to worry about,” he said.

Smith outlined several AI safety rules he’d like to see put into place, like a legal obligation to alert an organization if its system was breached by rogue AI agents. He also appears to be in favor of AI labs getting the approval of outside evaluators before an AI product is released, and spoke positively about kill-switches to pause or slow down AI if humans lose control of it. 

“Let’s speak calmly, maybe even softly, but firmly, and start to bring people together,” Smith said. “I hope that’s the role we can play as a company. I hope that’s the role the U.K. can play as a country.”