As of 2019, the computation needed to train many current neural networks can only be provided by very large companies with very large budgets.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
True: evidence from around 2019 shows that training compute for many prominent current networks (e.g. leading language and game-playing models) cost so much that in practice only very large, well-funded companies could provide it, with academic and smaller groups unable to train them. Mostly true: this holds for the largest, state-of-the-art models but 'many' slightly overstates it. Mixed: only a handful of headline models needed such resources, while many widely used networks could be trained on modest budgets. Mostly false: a few extreme cases are generalized, and evidence shows that most networks in use could be trained by universities or small labs. False: evidence shows that compute for current networks was broadly affordable without big-company budgets.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP ACL Anthology (Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) · July 2019
“Most of the models studied in this paper were developed outside academia; recent improvements in state-of-the-art accuracy are possible thanks to industry access to large-scale compute.”
-
E2 Green AI arXiv (Allen Institute for AI authors: Schwartz, Dodge, Smith, Etzioni) · July 2019
“Grover was trained on 256 TPU chips for two weeks, at an estimated cost of $25,000.”
-
E3 Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP ACL Anthology (Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) · July 2019
“We train all models on a single NVIDIA Titan X GPU, with the exception of ELMo which was trained on 3 NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti GPUs.”
-
E4 Green AI arXiv (Allen Institute for AI authors: Schwartz, Dodge, Smith, Etzioni) · July 2019
“Recent versions of AlphaGo are far more efficient [39].”
Reasoning
E1 says most of the models it studied were developed outside academia and that recent state-of-the-art gains came from industry access to large-scale compute. The evidence does not show that many widely used networks could be trained on modest budgets: E2 gives one $25,000 estimate for Grover without saying who could afford it, and E3 describes E1's own measurement setup rather than how the models were originally trained.
Cite this claim
Rodney Brooks, “As of 2019, the computation needed to train many current neural networks can only be provided by very large companies with very large budgets.” (said 19 March 2019). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_83bc116447a8, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_83bc116447a8
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Rodney Brooks
-
Mostly true
“The web has provided massive amounts of text for machine learning which has given rise to LLMs.”
The web has provided massive amounts of text for machine learning, which has given rise to LLMs.
-
Mostly true
“It has also supplied images and movies but they, and other images and movies explicitly collected for the purpose, have required human labeling.”
-
Mostly true
“this push to make everything learnable is pushing the cost of AI outside that of individuals or even large university departments.”
-
Mostly true
“Moore’s Law is slowing down, so that some computer architects are reporting the doubling time in amount of computation on a single chip is moving from one year to twenty years.”
-
Resolved true
“Computer architects are now trying to compensate for these problems by building special purpose chips for runtime use of trained networks.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.