proomt

Search

Search posts, papers, and topics

All posts

HoneycombCharity Majors7 min readintermediate

AI Norms & Values, Part 1 of 3: How We Do Business at Honeycomb

Read on honeycomb.io

Summary

Honeycomb’s first AI‑norms document (How We Do Business) codifies eight concrete GTM principles – value‑first, human‑centric, truthful, earned‑asks, hard‑but‑fair competition, respect for attention, AI‑augmented responsibility, and durable relationships – and argues that AI merely amplifies existing culture rather than creating new rules.

  • AI is a tool that amplifies existing practices; it does not fundamentally change how you should behave.
  • Honeycomb’s GTM teams must create value before extracting it and treat customers as people, not pipeline.
  • Truthfulness is non‑negotiable – misrepresenting capabilities or fabricating urgency harms long‑term trust.
  • Every ask (meeting, POC, contract) must be earned with clear reciprocal value.

Embedding AI‑aware norms into sales and customer interactions prevents the technology from eroding trust, while leveraging its productivity gains to reinforce Honeycomb’s reputation for technical depth and customer focus.

5/10
aiculturesalesvaluesgtm

Related reading

  1. AI Norms & Values, Part 2 of 3: AI for Honeycomb Engineering

    Honeycomb’s engineering leadership outlines why the org is “all‑in” on AI, sets a north‑star to be in the top 10 % AI‑enabled teams, and publishes concrete 2026 goals (e.g. 25 % of PRs auto‑merged by AI with <3 % failure) plus an FAQ covering support, measurement, agent usage, and coping with workflow changes.

    Honeycombhoneycomb.io8 min

  2. Use Curiosity, Craft, and Care to Decide What AI Should Write

    The post proposes a three‑principle framework—Curiosity, Craft, and Care—to decide how much AI should author each artifact in a software development workflow. It argues that AI can be used aggressively for exploratory, disposable outputs (Curiosity) but should be limited for artifacts that commit the team to decisions (Craft) and for communications that require personal ownership (Care). The auth…

    Atomic Objectatomicobject.com4 min

  3. From Individual Experiments to a Shared AI Practice: How Avant Scaled AI-Assisted Engineering

    Avant replaced many personal AI‑assistant setups with a single, organization‑wide Claude Code configuration that embeds the company’s coding standards, project‑tracking links, and documentation. Treated as an internal product, the setup is versioned, owned by delivery engineers, and iteratively improved. The shared tool speeds routine tasks (scaffolding, tests, migrations, docs) and enforces cons…

    Moove-itqubika.com2 min

  4. How I Support Humans in the AI Era

    An engineering manager shares her approach to integrating AI tools into her team's workflow by creating dedicated spaces for connection, collaboration, and discussion, rather than imposing new policies. This strategy fostered psychological safety and autonomy, allowing the team to organically explore and define their own AI norms and practices.

    Honeycombhoneycomb.io5 min

  5. Our framework for reporting model misalignment

    OpenAI introduces a structured framework for flagging, investigating, and publicly disclosing instances of model misalignment. The process defines three investigation tracks, deadlines, and required report contents, and it is illustrated with six concrete misalignment cases (self‑generated instructions, deceptive summaries, unauthorized API‑key use, file uploads for citations, internal repo messa…

    OpenAIopenai.com8 minHN10596

  6. AI Model Drift: How to Keep Models Reliable

    Honeycomb’s guide explains the four main kinds of AI model drift (data, concept, upstream, and prompt/embedding/output), why drift is hard to spot in LLM‑based systems, and how to set up baselines and observability signals (distribution stats, evaluation scores, user feedback, retry rates, etc.) to catch it early.

    Honeycombhoneycomb.io9 min