Skip to content
Back to the collection

Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?

Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Yacine Jernite, Emma Strubell

2023 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
4
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Recent years have seen a surge in the popularity of commercial AI products based on generative, multi-purpose AI systems promising a unified approach to building machine learning (ML) models into technology. However, this ambition of ``generality'' comes at a steep cost to the environment, given the amount of energy these systems require and the amount of carbon that they emit. In this work, we propose the first systematic comparison of the ongoing inference cost of various categories of ML systems, covering both task-specific (i.e. finetuned models that carry out a single task) and `general-purpose' models, (i.e. those trained for multiple tasks). We measure deployment cost as the amount of energy and carbon required to perform 1,000 inferences on representative benchmark dataset using these models. We find that multi-purpose, generative architectures are orders of magnitude more expensive than task-specific systems for a variety of tasks, even when controlling for the number of model parameters. We conclude with a discussion around the current trend of deploying multi-purpose generative ML systems, and caution that their utility should be more intentionally weighed against increased costs in terms of energy and emissions. All the data from our study can be accessed via an interactive demo to carry out further exploration and analysis.

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

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

acc_297
Neutral mention · rule
Agree on training. But that google paper was written when the only image model available for broad public consumption was dall-e 2 and video models were more than a year away. It gets a mention in a more recent 2024 paper [1] which goes into detail about how inference rather than training creates the difficult to manage energy load which grids struggle to meet. If consumer interests and demands drive the trend in what companies offer in terms of inference capability then it's fair to worry that the impact on sustainability goals will be an afterthought. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3658542
Original comment Parent story unavailable in snapshot
colesantiago
Neutral mention · rule
They are both the same. Both have breathless hype. Both are extremely overvalued and are a solution looking for a problem. Both aren't really useful unless you're (trying to count generating cat memes and broken hallucinating code a use case, it isn't). And last and the most important of all: Both of these waste a ton of energy either by training or running the software and are unlikely to make startups money due to it's rapid commoditization. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16863.pdf https://www.theverge.com/24066646/ai-electricity-energy-watt...
tomjohnneill
Neutral mention · rule
I can definitely imagine they're not covering the amortised cost of the training with the cost per individual inference request. It seems less likely to me that they're making a significant loss on each subsequent request, but again no source from me on that either. Looking a bit more into this, I found this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16863.pdf. It references a table saying that text generation uses 0.047 kWh per 1000 inferences, which is 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than my estimate. Though that is for GPT2, so possibly tracks to something roughly in the ~0.001 kWh per inference for GPT3.5.

Keep following the thread.

More in Machine learning

More from the same topics.