Live data from Hacker News

Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

news.ucsc.edu

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#21
post #10

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02528 -- always better than a press release. Code: https://github.com/ridgerchu/matmulfreellm --- Like others before them, the authors train LLMs using parameters consisting of ternary digits, or trits, with values in {-1, 0, 1}. What's new is that the authors then build a custom hardware solution on an FPGA and run billion-parameter LLMs consuming only 13W, moving LLM inference clos…

The claim about moving closer to brain-like efficiency conveniently omits how that model compares to modern LLMs. You can put together a toy LLM that is much smaller and more efficient than ChatGPT but isn’t as useful and call it “more efficient”, but that’s not useful in practice.

They do cover that in the article:

> Although they reduced the number of operations, the researchers were able to maintain the performance of the neural network by introducing time-based computation in the training of the model. This enables the network to have a “memory” of the important information it processes, enhancing performance. This technique paid off — the researchers compared their model to Meta’s state-of-the-art algorithm called Llama, and were able to achieve the same performance, even at a scale of billions of model parameters.

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#22
post #2

> It costs $700,000 per day in energy costs to run ChatGPT 3.5, according to recent estimates, and leaves behind a massive carbon footprint in the process. Compared to what? I wouldn't defend LLMs as "worth their electricity" quite yet, and they are definitely less efficient than a lot of other software, but I'd still like to see how this compares to gaming consoles, or email servers, the advertising industry hosting…

I asked GPT-4 to estimate how much CO2 this likely emits, in units of "typical car usage in a city." It suggests this emits roughly as much CO2 as Reno or Des Moines. That's staggering, but there are about 100 cities this size in the US, so decreasing car usage 1% would more than offset this. I know this is a bizarre comparison to make, but CO2 emissions are fungible.

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#23
post #4

That's 13 Watts apparently, in non-American units.

Is there an American unit for power? I thought J/s is universal. 0.017433 Horsepower? I had expected them to make the title more clickbaity, but that number is about right for a modern lightbulb.

The joke is that Americans like to use metaphors when describing measurements of things, like "as large as a baseball" or "as long as a football field".

However, there are non-SI units that are somewhat commonplace. Horsepower, foot-pounds per second, or BTU per second aren't unheard of.

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#24
post #10

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02528 -- always better than a press release. Code: https://github.com/ridgerchu/matmulfreellm --- Like others before them, the authors train LLMs using parameters consisting of ternary digits, or trits, with values in {-1, 0, 1}. What's new is that the authors then build a custom hardware solution on an FPGA and run billion-parameter LLMs consuming only 13W, moving LLM inference clos…

The claim about moving closer to brain-like efficiency conveniently omits how that model compares to modern LLMs. You can put together a toy LLM that is much smaller and more efficient than ChatGPT but isn’t as useful and call it “more efficient”, but that’s not useful in practice.

> The claim about moving closer to brain-like efficiency conveniently omits how that model compares to modern LLMs.

I disagree. The authors aren't conveniently omitting anything. They show all details in a comparison against LLama models.

Moreover, all evidence I've seen so far suggests that tritwise models can scale up to state-of-the-art sizes.

---

PS. I'm talking about the paper, not the fluffy press release.

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#25
post #11
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just doesn't seem worth pointing out the carbon footprint of AI just yet. Of course it does. It's not like AI replaced anything you mentioned. Its carbon footprint comes on top of it. The benefit is secondary if the end result just means more carbon dioxide.

> It's not like AI replaced anything you mentioned. I mean it's true it hasn't replaced anything the OP mentioned, but it has definitely replaced parts of the compute that I would normally use for e.g. searching.

But do you now spend less time on the computer?

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#26
post #22
post #2

> It costs $700,000 per day in energy costs to run ChatGPT 3.5, according to recent estimates, and leaves behind a massive carbon footprint in the process. Compared to what? I wouldn't defend LLMs as "worth their electricity" quite yet, and they are definitely less efficient than a lot of other software, but I'd still like to see how this compares to gaming consoles, or email servers, the advertising industry hosting…

I asked GPT-4 to estimate how much CO2 this likely emits, in units of "typical car usage in a city." It suggests this emits roughly as much CO2 as Reno or Des Moines. That's staggering, but there are about 100 cities this size in the US, so decreasing car usage 1% would more than offset this. I know this is a bizarre comparison to make, but CO2 emissions are fungible.

> I asked GPT-4

What makes you confident it gave you an accurate answer?

Re: Researchers run high-performing LLM on the energy needed to power a lightbulb

#27

It looks like this is a quantization method to flatten matrices for vector addition. Can anyone explain how this could allow LLMs to reach current benchmarks without losing performance?

Because existing LLMs store no more than 2bits of knowledge per parameter, despite having many more bits of precision: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05405
Post reply on HN