What did AI researchers think at the end of 2024?
We recently (finally!) got the results of the 2024 survey out. The paper is here, but it’s pretty long, so I’ll tell you the most interesting bits (according to me).But first, quick background: this was the fourth run of the same survey since 2016. We wrote to everyone we could who published in six top-tier AI venues and got a 10% response rate—high!
- ▪We recently (finally!) got the results of the 2024 survey out.
- ▪The paper is here, but it’s pretty long, so I’ll tell you the most interesting bits (according to me).But first, quick background: this was the fourth run of the same survey since 2016.
- ▪We wrote to everyone we could who published in six top-tier AI venues and got a 10% response rate—high!
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 6,543 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Hacker News (AI / LLM) |
| Canonical URL | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/62j5mPY8pFo2GD5fo/what-did-ai-researchers-think-at-the-end-of-2024-1 |
| Publication time | Sat, 26 Sep 2026 17:01:33 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-26T18:30:14.432Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-26T18:30:14.432Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | A8ucWnHIhtzT · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
We recently (finally!) got the results of the 2024 survey out. The paper is here, but it’s pretty long, so I’ll tell you the most interesting bits (according to me).But first, quick background: this was the fourth run of the same survey since 2016. We wrote to everyone we could who published in six top-tier AI venues and got a 10% response rate—high! We got 1580 valid responses, but don’t be confused: specific questions often have answers from many fewer researchers, because we gave each person a randomized subset (see Section 2.5). There was almost certainly some non-response bias, but it probably doesn’t make much difference.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Hacker News (AI / LLM).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Hacker News (AI / LLM)
