HackerPapers

arXiv:2104.10350cs.LG

Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training

David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, Jeff Dean

Abstract

The computation demand for machine learning (ML) has grown rapidly recently, which comes with a number of costs. Estimating the energy cost helps measure its environmental impact and finding greener strategies, yet it is challenging without detailed information. We calculate the energy use and carbon footprint of several recent large models-T5, Meena, GShard, Switch Transformer, and GPT-3-and refine earlier estimates for the neural architecture search that found Evolved Transformer. We highlight the following opportunities to improve energy efficiency and CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e): Large but sparsely activated DNNs can consume <1/10th the energy of large, dense DNNs without sacrificing accuracy despite using as many or even more parameters. Geographic location matters for ML workload scheduling since the fraction of carbon-free energy and resulting CO2e vary ~5X-10X, even within the same country and the same organization. We are now optimizing where and when large models are trained. Specific datacenter infrastructure matters, as Cloud datacenters can be ~1.4-2X more energy efficient than typical datacenters, and the ML-oriented accelerators inside them can be ~2-5X more effective than off-the-shelf systems. Remarkably, the choice of DNN, datacenter, and processor can reduce the carbon footprint up to ~100-1000X. These large factors also make retroactive estimates of energy cost difficult. To avoid miscalculations, we believe ML papers requiring large computational resources should make energy consumption and CO2e explicit when practical. We are working to be more transparent about energy use and CO2e in our future research. To help reduce the carbon footprint of ML, we believe energy usage and CO2e should be a key metric in evaluating models, and we are collaborating with MLPerf developers to include energy usage during training and inference in this industry standard benchmark.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning cs.CYComputers and Society

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 3 comments across 3 threads, from Apr 2021 to Jan 2022. Found in 5 HN submissions from Apr 2021 to Mar 2023. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments3 threads

    • > Deep-learning models have become pervasive tools in science and engineering. However, their energy requirements now increasingly limit their scalability.[1] They make this claim first, and cite one source. I haven't heard of this as an issue before. Is there anywhere else I…

      melissalobosView on HNParent context

    • This is somewhat well covered in prior research, in so far as the information required is available. Here are some recent evaluations of the carbon footprint of modern models: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243 (cited in the above paper) > The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency…

      soraki_soladeadView on HNParent context

    • The paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350 In section 4.8, they have a snarky comparison to Bitcoin: > Stated alternatively, ~70M people have Bitcoin wallets yet Google consumes 1/10th of Bitcoin’s energy to provide services for billions of people, and all of Google’s…

      skybrianView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.