Skip to content
Back to the collection

Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training

David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le

Show all 9 authors

Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, Jeff Dean

2021 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the 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.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

melissalobos
Neutral mention · rule
> 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 could read more on this? [1]https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350
soraki_soladead
Neutral mention · rule
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 (EPA) provides average CO2 produced (in pounds per kilowatt-hour) for power consumed in the U.S. (EPA, 2018), which we use to convert power to estimated CO2 emissions: > CO2e = 0.954 pt > This conversion takes into account the relative proportions of different energy sources (primarily natural gas, coal, nuclear and renewable) consumed to produce energy in the United States. (Other countries are…
Read the full comment
also included in the paper.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10350 The authors note that in many cases accurately estimating the carbon footprint is difficult because the information required is not publicly or readily available. However, they do provide some additional data, improved calculations, as well as motivations beyond CO2 reduction.
skybrian
Neutral mention · rule
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 energy use is offset. I wrote a bit more commentary that I’ll link to instead of copying here: https://tildes.net/~enviro/wir/carbon_emissions_and_large_ne...

Keep following the thread.

More in Machine learning

More from the same topics.