Author: Wayne Joubert

Scientific papers: innovation … or imitation?

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Sometimes a paper comes out that has the seeds of a great idea that could lead to a whole new line of pioneering research. But, instead, nothing much happens, except imitative works that do not push the core idea forward at all.

For example the McCulloch Pitts paper from 1943 showed how neural networks could represent arbitrary logical or Boolean expressions of a certain class. The paper was well-received at the time, brilliantly executed by co-authors with diverse expertise in neuroscience, logic and computing. Had its signficance been fully grasped, this paper might have, at least notionally, formed a unifying conceptual bridge between the two nascent schools of connectionism and symbolic AI (one can at least hope). But instead, the heated conflict in viewpoints in the field has persisted, even to this day.

Another example is George Miller’s 7 +/- 2 paper. This famous result showed humans are able to hold only a small number of pieces of information in mind at the same time while reasoning.  This paper was important not just for the specific result, but for the breakthrough in methodology using rigorous experimental noninvasive methods to discover how human thinking works—a topic we know so little about, even today. However, the followup papers by others, for the most part, only extended or expanded on the specific finding in very minor ways. [1] Thankfully, Miller’s approach did eventually gain influence in more subtle ways.

Of course it’s natural from the incentive structures of publishing that many papers would be primarily derivative rather than original. It’s not a bad thing that, when a pioneering paper comes out, others very quickly write rejoinder papers containing evaluations or minor tweaks of the original result. Not bad, but sometimes we miss the larger implications of the original result and get lost in the details.

Another challenge is stovepiping—we get stuck in our narrow swim lanes for our specific fields and camps of research. [2] We don’t see the broader implications, such as connections and commonalities across fields that could lead to fruitful new directions.

Thankfully, at least to some extent current research in AI shows some mix of both innovation and imitation. Inspired in part by the accelerationist mindset, many new papers appear every day, some with significant new findings and others that are more modest riffs on previous papers.

Notes

[1] Following this line of research on human thought processes could be worthwhile for various reasons. For example, some papers in linguistics state that Chomsky‘s vision for a universal grammar is misguided because the common patterns in human language are entirely explainable by the processing limitations of the human mind. But this claim is made with no justification or methodological rigor of any kind. If I claimed a CPU performs vector addition or atomic operations efficiently because of “the capabilities of the processor,” I would need to provide some supporting evidence, for example, documenting that the CPU has vector processing units or specialized hardware for atomics. The assertions about language structure being shaped by the human mental processing faculty is just an empty truism, unless supported by some amount of scientific rigor and free of the common fallacies of statistical reasoning.

[2] I recently read a paper in linguistics with apparent promise, but the paper totally misconstrued the relationship between Shannon entropy and Kolmogorov complexity. Sadly this paper passed review in a linguistic journal, but if it had had a mathematically inclined reviewer, the problem would have been caught and fixed.

 

 

Why do LLMs have emergent properties?

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Large language models display emergence behaviors: when the parameter count is scaled to a certain value, suddenly the LLM is capable of performing a new task not possible at a smaller size. Some say the abruptness of this change is merely a spurious artifact of how it is measured. Even so, many would like to understand, predict, and even facilitate the emergence of these capabilities.

The following is not a mathematical proof , but a plausibility argument as to why such behavior should not be surprising, and a possible mechanism. I’ll start with simple cases and work up to more complex ones.

In nature

An obvious point. Emergence is ubiquitous in nature. Ice near the freezing point that is slightly heated suddenly becomes drinkable (phase change). An undrivable car with three wheels gets a fourth wheel and is suddenly drivable. Nonlinearity exists in nature.

In machine learning

A simple example: consider fitting N arbitrary points in one dimension with linear regression using monomials. For a basis up to degree less than N-1, for most possible sets of data points (excluding “special” cases like collinear), the regression error will be non-zero, and reciprocally, the accuracy will be some finite value. Increase the number of monomials (parameter count) to N-1, and suddenly the error drops to zero, and accuracy jumps to infinity.

When using k-means clustering, if one has n clusters and runs k-means clustering with K<N cluster centers, the error will be significant, but when K=N, suddenly the cluster centers can model all clusters well, and the error drops dramatically.

In algorithms

Consider all Boolean circuits composed from some fixed logically complete set of gate types. Now consider the goal of constructing a Boolean circuit that takes a single byte representing the integer N and increments it to N+1, modulo 256 (8 bits input, 8 bits output). Clearly, such a circuit exists, for example, the standard chain of 1-bit add-and-carry circuits. Note one can in principle enumerate all possible circuits of finite gate count. It is manifest that an integer K>0 exists for which no circuit with less than K gates solves the problem but there exists a circuit with K gates that does. The standard chain of 8 1-bit adders might be such a minimizer, or maybe the optimal circuit is more exotic (for example see here, though this method is not guaranteed to compute a minimizer).

One would thus see this capability potentially emerge as soon as one reaches a gate budget of K gates. Now, one could argue that for a smaller gate budget, a partial result might be possible, for example, incrementing any 7-bit number—so the increase in capability is continuous, not emergent or wholly new. However, if all you care about is correctly incrementing any byte (for example, for manipulating ASCII text), then it’s all or nothing; there’s no partial credit. Even so, the gate budget required for for incrementing 8 bits compared to only 7-bit integers is only slightly higher, but this minor increase in gate count actually doubles the quantity of integers that can be incremented, which might be perceived as a surprising, unexpected (emergent) jump.

In LLMs

The parameter count of an LLM defines a certain bit budget. This bit budget must be spread across many, many tasks the final LLM will be capable of, as defined by the architecture and the training process (in particular, the specific mix of training data). These tasks are implemented as “algorithms” (circuits) within the LLM. The algorithms are mixed together and (to some extent) overlap in a complex way that is difficult to analyze.

Suppose one of these desired capabilities is some task X. Suppose all possible input/output pairs for this operation are represented in the training data (or, maybe not—maybe some parts of the algorithm can be interpolated from the training data). The LLM is trained with SGD, typically with 2-norm minimization. The unit ball in the 2-norm is a sphere in high dimensional space. Thus “all directions” of the loss are pressed down equally by the minimization process—which is to say, the LLM is optimized on all the inputs for many, many tasks, not just task X. The limited parameter bit budget must be spread across many, many other tasks the LLM must be trained to do. As LLMs of increasing size are trained, at some point enough parameter bits in the budget will be allocatable to represent a fully accurate algorithm for task X, and at this point the substantially accurate capability to do “task X” will be perceivable—“suddenly.”

Task X could be the 8-bit incrementer, which from an optimal circuit standpoint would manifest emergence, as described above. However, due to the weakness of the SGD training methodology and possibly the architecture, there is evidence that LLM training does not learn optimal arithmetic circuits at all but instead does arithmetic by a “bag of heuristics” (which incidentally really is, itself, an algorithm, albeit a piecemeal one). In this case, gradually adding more and more heuristics might be perceived to increase the number of correct answers in a somewhat more incremental way, to be sure. However, this approach is not scalable—to perform accurate arithmetic for any number of digits, if one does not use an exact arithmetic algorithm or circuit, one must use increasingly more heuristics to increase coverage to try to capture all possible inputs accurately. And still, transitioning from an approximate to an exact 8-bit incrementer might in practice be perceived as an abrupt new capability, albeit a small one for this example.

One could alternatively consider tool use (for example, a calculator function that is external to the LLM proper), but then a new tool must be written for every new task, and the LLM needs to understand how to use the tool. (Maybe at some point LLMs will know how to write and use their own algorithmic tools?)

Predicting emergence

The real question is how can we predict when a new LLM will achieve some new capability X. For example, X = “Write a short story that resonates with the social mood of the present time and is a runaway hit” (and do the same thing again once a year based on new data, indefinitely into the future without failure). We don’t know an “algorithm” for this, and we can’t even begin to guess the required parameter budget or the training data needed. That’s the point of using an LLM—its training internally “discovers” new, never seen before algorithms from data that would be difficult for humans to formulate or express from first principles. Perhaps there is some indirect way of predicting the emergence of such X, but it doesn’t seem obvious on the face of it how to predict this directly.

Conclusion

Based on these examples, it would seem not at all surprising for LLMs to exhibit emergent behaviors, though in our experience our encounter with them may be startling. Predicting them may be possible to a limited extent but for the general case seems really hard.

Do you have any thoughts? If so, please leave them in the comments.

Looking at Your Data

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

What to do first after scoping out and starting a data science project?

I’ve started an unsupervised learning project based on textual data. The first thing I like to do is actually look at the data. Is it noisy? What are the features—complex feature engineering needed? How heterogeneous? What generalization and overfitting challenges?

Analysis can take many forms: actually looking at the numbers, using visualization tools, Excel spreadsheet, Jupyter notebooks with Matplotlib, computing various statistics on the whole dataset or portions of it.

Some may believe this is not important. Just throw a barrage of classification or regression methods at the data, treat the data as a black box. Of course testing on a suite of ML methods is not a bad thing. But I can’t imagine not using every avenue available, including looking at the data. I’m certainly not alone in this view (see for example here, here and here).

I spent a few hours developing a simple custom data viewer for my problem that colored different parts of the textual data to give insight as to what was going on. I used ChatGPT to develop parts of this tool; some of it was incorrect and needed fixing, but having at least a draft of the code definitely saved time. Seeing the actual data in person was insightful and generated ideas for solving the problem.

While inspecting the data can help identify issues, it also risks biasing the modeling process by imposing assumptions that a flexible model might otherwise uncover on its own. One must also beware of data leakage. That being said—in general I think understanding as much as you can about the data is not a bad thing.

Lessons Learned With the Z3 SAT/SMT Solver

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Community best practices are useful for helping use a software product more effectively. I’ve just completed a small project using the Z3 solver. Here are some things I’ve learned:

  • My project involves an optimization problem: for a subset of Boolean variables, maximize the count of how many are true. My specific problem is solved much faster with Z3 by converting to a decision problem: set up a base problem to solve for the count being at least a certain fixed number, and iterate using bisection search to find the highest number satisfied. Bisection has been used for this problem before. Also, certain methods may possibly reduce the number of bisection steps.
  • Using Z3  “tactics” can greatly speed up the solve process. I found a good combination of tactics by trial and error, guided in part by the descriptions of the tactics. ChatGPT was of some help in finding good selections to try. An interesting paper discusses use of Monte Carlo tree search to define a good chain of tactics. The branching factor here is high, perhaps around 1000, though there are some redundancies in this number. Training multi-step MCTS might be expensive, but doing this once to get a good static chain of tactics might be worthwhile.
  • The strength of Z3 is in its extremely broad functionality, more so than its raw compute performance. It would be a daunting task for the Z3 team to fully optimize every possible solve option. I examined some of the SMT solver competitions to find faster codes. CVC5 on one case I tried was about twice as fast as Z3; I’ve seen similar reports in the literature. Presently I don’t find it worth the switching costs to use CVC5. One approach might be to use the very capable tactics engine of Z3 and pass the resulting modified problem to CVC5.
  • The specific formulation of the problem can make a big difference in solver performance. I’ve already seen this in the area of iterative linear solvers, for example diagonal matrix scaling can dramatically help (conjugate gradients) or hurt (multigrid) solver performance. Same thing here. Hence the huge importance in good “preprocessing“ for SAT/SMT solvers. One could wish the solver could handle all this automatically without user intervention. However, these powerful tools must be brandished very carefully for maximum effect.
  • Generally, one should move as much of the problem outside of the solver as possible, since the solver is the long pole in the tent in terms of scalability. For example if there is a Z3 integer that must be limited to a certain range and additionally some values in the interval must be blacklisted, it’s better, if possible, to compress all of the valid values into a single interval, to make testing for validity simpler in the Z3 code.
  • Along these lines: the Z3 tactics for propagating constants are not perfect; thus it can help to manually propagate constants (though this unfortunately makes the code more messy). This propagation can also sometimes allow for removal of unneeded constraints, further speeding up performance. Relatedly, some intriguing work by Benjamin Mikek shows how one can use the LLVM code optimizer to optimize the SMT problem in a way that is complementary to Z3 tactics, achieving significant speedup (for more info see here, here and here). I haven’t tried this but it seems promising.
  • Because of the scalability challenge of SMT solvers, various simplifying heuristics to modify the problem can be helpful. For example: solving a subproblem of the main problem and holding the resulting variables fixed in order to solve the rest of the problem. Or solving a simpler, smaller problem first to determine variable presets for the full problem. With these heuristics, one does not in general find the true global optimum; but the result may be adequate.
  • CPU threading does not work for my case (Z3 Python, macOS). Perfect parallelization of SAT and SMP is an unsolved (and perhaps in some sense not fully solvable) problem. One can naïvely parallelize bisection search by converting to trisection, etc., but this does not give perfect speedup (specif., log(P) speedup on P threads). Improvements to parallel bisection in some cases may be possible. Recent work by Armin Biere and colleagues looks promising; as I read it, near perfect speedup up to eight threads (at least for some problems).
  • Some of the main developers of Z3 are on Stack Overflow and have been active in the past answering questions. This seems very useful.

Resources like Handbook of Satisfiability and the proceedings of various SAT/SMT conferences seem helpful. More information on best practices for non-expert practitioners would be a great help to the community. If you know of any good resources, please share in the comments.

Colossus versus El Capitan: A Tale of Two Supercomputers

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Colossus

The xAI Colossus supercomputer contains 100,000 NVIDIA H100 GPUs. Upgrades are planned, ultimately up to as much as a million GPUs. The H100 has theoretical peak speed of at least 60 teraFLOPs (FP64 tensor core), though the actual number depends on the power and frequency cap settings on the GPUs. Admittedly FP64 is overkill for Colossus’ intended use for AI model training, though it is required for most scientific and engineering applications on typical supercomputers. This would put Colossus nominally at theoretical peak speed of 6 Exaflops full FP64 precision for dense matrix multiplies.

El Capitan

El Capitan at Lawrence Livermore National Lab ranks now as top #1 fastest system in the world on the TOP500 list, recently taking the crown from Frontier at Oak Ridge National Lab. Both Frontier and El Cap were procured under the same collaborative CORAL-2 project by the two respective laboratories. El Capitan uses AMD Instinct MI300A GPUs for theoretical peak speed of 2.746 Exaflops.

Which system is fastest?

You may wonder about the discrepancy: Colossus has more raw FLOPs, while El Capitan is ranked #1. Which system is actually faster? For decades, top system performance has commonly been measured for TOP500 using the High Performance Linpack (HPL) benchmark. Some have expressed concerns that HPL is an unrepresentative “FLOPs-only” benchmark. However, HPL actually measures more than raw rate of floating point operations. HPL performs distributed matrix products on huge matrices that become smaller and smaller in size during the HPL run, with a serial dependency between sequential matrix multiplies. Near the end of the run, performance becomes very limited by network latency, requiring excellent network performance. Furthermore, HPL is also a system stability test, since the system (often made up of brand new hardware for which bad parts must be weeded out) must stay up for a period of hours without crashing and at the end yield a correct answer (my colleague Phil Roth gives a description of this ordeal for Frontier). In short, a system could have lots of FLOPs but fail these basic tests of being able to run a nontrivial application.

Some commercial system owners may choose not to submit an HPL number, for whatever reason (though Microsoft submitted one and currently has a system at #4). In some cases submitting a TOP500 number may not be a mission priority for the owner. Or the system may not have an adequate network or the requisite system stability to produce a good number, in spite of having adequate FLOPs. Companies don’t typically give reasons for not submitting, but their reasons can be entirely valid, and not submitting a number has certainly happened before.

How long to build a system?

You may also wonder how it is that Colossus was stood up in 122 days (indeed a remarkable achievement by a highly capable team) whereas the CORAL-2 Project, which delivered El Capitan and Frontier, spanned multiple years.

Put simply, a system like Colossus stands on the shoulders of many multi-year investments in vendor hardware and software under projects like CORAL-2. Years ago, Oak Ridge National Lab originally put NVIDIA on the map for supercomputing with Titan, the first NVIDIA-powered petascale supercomputer. Some of the core NVIDIA software in use today was developed in part under this multi-year Titan project. Similarly for AMD and CORAL-2. Many systems, including Colossus, have benefitted from these long-term multi-year investments.

Another reason has to do with intended workloads of the respective systems. Colossus is intended primarily for AI model training; even though model architecture variations have slightly different computational patterns, the requirements are similar. El Capitan on the other hand is a general purpose supercomputer, and as such must support many different kinds of science applications with highly diverse requirements (and even more so at other centers like OLCF, ALCF and NERSC) (on system requirements, application diversity and application readiness see here, here and here). It’s much harder to put together a system to meet the needs of such a variety of science projects.

Conclusion

Colossus and El Capitan are both highly capable systems that will provide millions of node-hours of compute for their respective projects. Colossus has a high flop rate to support reduced precision matrix multiples (and presumably high network bandwidth for Allreduce) required for AI model training. El Capitan has a balanced architecture to support a wide variety of science applications at scale.

ADDENDUM: Colossus is now up to 200K GPUs.

On Making Databases Run Faster

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Database  technology is a mature field, and techniques for optimizing databases are well understood. However, surprises can still happen.

Certain performance optimizations you might expect to be automatic are not really. I’m working with a legacy code developed some time ago, before modern notions of separation of concerns between code business logic and data storage. The code runs slower than you’d expect, and some have wondered as to why this is.

Profiling of the code revealed that the slowdown was not in the core computation, but rather in the reading and writing of the backend database, which occurs frequently when this code executes.

My first thought was to run with the database in RAM disk, which would give higher bandwidth and lower latency than spinning disk or SSD. This helped a little, but not much.

As a short term fix I ended up writing code for (in-memory) hash tables as an interposer between the code and the database. This can cache commonly accessed values and thus reduce database access.

I would’ve thought high-speed RAM caching of values would be default behavior for a database manager. A principle of interface design is to make the defaults as useful as possible. But in this case apparently not.

Thankfully my fix gave over 10X speedup in application launch time and 6X speedup in the core operation of the code.

The project team is moving toward SQLite for database management in the near future. SQLite has perhaps a dozen or so available methods for optimizations like this. However early experiments with SQLite for this case show that more fundamental structural code modifications will also be needed, to improve database access patterns.

As with general code optimization, sometimes you’d be inclined to think the system (compiler, database manager, etc.) will “do it all for you.” But often not.

Code Profiling Without a Profiler

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Making your code to run faster starts with understanding where in the code the runtime is actually spent. But suppose, for whatever reason, the code profiling tools won’t work?

I recently used MS Visual Studio on a legacy C++ code. The code crashed shortly after startup when attempting to profile, though otherwise the code ran fine for both release and debug build targets. The cause of the problem was not immediately visible.

If all else fails, using manual timers can help. The idea is to find a high-accuracy system wallclock timer function and use this to read the time before and after some part of the code you want to time. One can essentially apply “bisection search” to the code base to look for the code hot spots. See below for an example.

This can be useful in various situations. Codes in complex languages (or even mixed languages in the code base) can have unusual constructs that break debuggers or profilers. Also, exotic hardware like embedded systems, GPUs or FPGAs may lack full profiler support. Additionally, brand new hardware releases often lack mature tool support, at least initially.

Furthermore, profiling tools themselves, though helpful for getting a quick snapshot of the performance breakdown of each function in the code, have their own limitations. Profilers work either by instrumenting the executable code or sampling. Instrumenting can cause timing inaccuracies by adding overhead from calling the system timer on entrance and exit to every function called. Also it breaks function inlining, often reducing performance.

Sampling on the other hand can be inaccurate if the sample rate is too low, or can distort runtime when sampling at too high a frequency. In contrast, manual timers can circumvent these problems by a very surgical application to specific parts of the code (though some profilers let you turn the profiler on and off at different parts of the code).

Resorting to manual timing of code sections is a messy business. But sometimes it’s the only thing that will work.

Visual Studio C++ Code Example

// mycode.h

#include "cstdio"
#include "cstdarg"

// Get time of day - elapsed seconds
static double gtod() {   
    LARGE_INTEGER ctr, freq;
    QueryPerformanceFrequency(&freq);
    QueryPerformanceCounter(&ctr);
    return static_cast(ctr.QuadPart) / static_cast(freq.QuadPart);
}   
    
// Convenience function for printing to file
static void FilePrintf(const char* format, ...) {   
    char buffer[1024];
    va_list args;
    va_start(args, format);
    vsnprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), format, args);
    va_end(args);
    FILE* myoutfile = fopen("mytimingsfile.txt", "a");
    fprintf(myoutfile, "%s", buffer);
    fclose(myoutfile);
}   
    
// Storage for timer
extern double g_timer;


// mycode.cpp

#include "mycode.h"

// Initialization for timer
double g_timer = 0;

int main() {

    // ...
    g_timer = 0;

    for (int i=0; i<n; ++i) {
        // ...
        const double t1 = gtod();
        my_expensive_function();
        g_timer += gtod() - t1;
        // ...
    }

    FilePrintf("my_expensive_function runtime: %.6f seconds.\n", g_timer);
    g_timer = 0;

    // ...

Standing with Intellectual Giants

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

 

Is it possible to come up with truly innovative ideas when you’re not part of the institutions where the expertise resides?

According to one study, the answer would seem to be “No.” The book, The Sociology of Philosophies by Randall Collins, makes a case for how great ideas through history have always developed, almost without fail, in connection with the expert community.

Organizations, institutions and even loose associations of individuals can possess tacit knowledge giving a competitive moat that is hard for outsiders to cross. This may include explicit trade secrets and technical facts, but also certain thought styles, rules of thumb, recipes, etc., that reside only in the minds of the participants.

Sometimes these thought styles are more important than the bare facts themselves. In a recent interview, Terence Tao commented that sometimes his most appreciated lectures are those in which he makes a mistake and must show his thought process in real time for how he fixes the problem. By learning, not just what the solution is but how to approach the problem, one can be enabled to solve many problems, not just one.

Sometimes such learning occurs when a corporation or other institution imprints its attitudes, thought styles and mental habits onto its members over a period of time.

The book Sociology of Philosophies, however, may have a fatal flaw. In determining what is a great idea, the book, perhaps circularly, relies on the authority of what institutions say is a great idea—thus potentially arriving at the conclusion as a tautology. Diffusion of ideas may be a better tool for looking at the problem, by looking at societal impact rather than just elite opinion.

An opposite idea is the notion of maverick science—knowledge developed outside of the institutions, often ridiculed and sometimes vindicated.  Some ideas like open source software were developed from a purposely anti-institutional perspective (thus spawning a new community of its own). Maverick thinking may be more important now than ever, as many institutions have become moribund (for perspectives see here and here).

Opportunities for the maverick may be better now than ever. For one, the Internet, and particularly the prevalence of online talks and lectures, a trend accelerated during Covid, make expert knowledge more accessible than ever. Second, AI chatbots now allow you to ask questions of this content, playing something of a mentoring role. It’s a better time than ever for institutional outsiders to do worthwhile things.

 

DeepSeek-R1: Do we need less compute now?

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

 

The reactions to the new DeepSeek-R1 AI model in recent days seem limitless. Some say it runs so much faster than existing models that we will no longer need the billions of dollars in compute hardware that big tech is preparing to buy.

Is that plausible?

To get an answer, we need only look back at the experience of the recently-completed Exascale Computing Project. This large scale multi-lab project was tasked with developing technology (primarily software) to prepare for exascale computing, which has recently been achieved by Frontier, Aurora and El Capitan.

During the course of the project, various algorithm and implementation improvements were discovered by the the science teams, these leading to as much as 60X speedup or more, over and above speedups possible from hardware alone [1]. In response, are the teams just running the very same problems faster on older hardware? No — instead, they are now able to run much, much larger problems than previously possible, exploiting both hardware and software improvements.

Or suppose today there were no such thing as the fast Fourier transform (FFT) and scientists were computing Fourier transforms using (essentially) large dense matrix-vector products. If someone then discovered the FFT, I’d guarantee you that scientists would not only say, (1) “Wow, now I can run my existing problems much, much faster,” but also, (2) “Wow, now I can run problems much larger than I ever dreamed and solve problems larger than I could have ever imagined!”

Paradoxically, faster algorithms might even increase the demand for newer, faster hardware. For example, a new faster algorithm for designing medications to cure cancer might be judged so important that it’s worth building the largest machine possible to run it effectively.

All this is not to say whether you should buy or sell Nvidia stock right now. However, it does mean that there is no simplistic argument that faster algorithms and implementations necessarily lead to lower spend on computing hardware. History shows that sometimes this is not true at all. The smart money, on the other hand, is on research teams that are able to exploit any and every new discovery to improve what is possible with their codes, whether by hardware, data, code optimizations or algorithms.

Notes

[1] See slide 9 from Doug Kothe’s talk, “Exascale and Artificial Intelligence: A Great Marriage“. The “Figure of Merit” (FOM) number represents speedup of science output from an application compared to an earlier baseline system. Specifically, a FOM speedup of 50X is the anticipated speedup from baseline due to efficient use of hardware only, for example, on Frontier compared to the earlier OLCF Titan system.

Can AI Models Reason: Is Data All You Need?

Posted on by Wayne Joubert

Many are voicing concern that the world is running out of data and that this will be a blocker to progress toward smarter AI models. One paper in fact projects timelines for when we will run out.

AI researchers are looking for ways to adapt.  Nvidia has trained a specific model to generate synthetic data for training other models. Some use this approach, though using AI-generated data to train AI is not without risk.

Others have asked a bigger question, namely, is something fundamentally missing in our approach that relies so heavily on data. Certainly the bitter lesson thesis and the position long advocated by Geoffrey Hinton argue for a data-first approach with “as few” prior assumptions as possible (though every model has a bias).

But it’s currently simply unknown whether just adding more data and compute will do the trick for achieving general intelligence or whether something else is needed. Neurosymbolic approaches are being experimented with, in various forms. But it’s unclear whether these can scale up to the level needed. And the frontier labs, laser-focused on the current paradigm, may not have adequate time or resources to investigate high-risk/high-reward alternatives.

From a theoretical standpoint, sometimes more data is simply not enough. As discussed in a previous post, some problems in mathematics and engineering require exponentially large amount of data to train neural network models. Exponentials can work in your favor, but also can work against you (think of the Tower of Hanoi problem or the Wheat and Chessboard problem). Some problems on certain models cannot be solved by any amount of data available in the entire universe.

The requirements for solving these problems can grow much more quickly than expected. The strength of neural networks, their flexibility, their universal approximation property, can also be a weakness. It can take so much data to nail down all the parameters so that the model is completely error free. Thankfully, many other problems that people want to solve (such as human language modeling) are fundamentally lower dimensional and thus less vulnerable to this problem.

We just don’t know whether the current data-hungry approach will be enough—or whether we’ll need to learn another bitter lesson.