2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2009.06489
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Hardware Lottery

Abstract: Hardware, systems and algorithms research communities have historically had different incentive structures and fluctuating motivation to engage with each other explicitly. This historical treatment is odd given that hardware and software have frequently determined which research ideas succeed (and fail). This essay introduces the term hardware lottery to describe when a research idea wins because it is suited to the available software and hardware and not because the idea is superior to alternative research d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(79 reference statements)
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An important objection that might be raised against the position taken in this paper is the fact that black box approaches display remarkable performance, partly due to the fact that such approaches are eminently suited for current hardware, e.g., GPUs [26], while it is far from clear whether systems based on the principles proposed here would be able to reach similar performance, given current computers. However, as argued in [6], there is no fundamental reason to believe that one would have to sacrifice performance to achieve better interpretability; at the very least, we argue that this issue should be thoroughly investigated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…An important objection that might be raised against the position taken in this paper is the fact that black box approaches display remarkable performance, partly due to the fact that such approaches are eminently suited for current hardware, e.g., GPUs [26], while it is far from clear whether systems based on the principles proposed here would be able to reach similar performance, given current computers. However, as argued in [6], there is no fundamental reason to believe that one would have to sacrifice performance to achieve better interpretability; at the very least, we argue that this issue should be thoroughly investigated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Lottery tickets [Frankle and Carbin, 2018] are a set of small sub-networks derived from a larger dense network, which outperforms their parent networks. Many insightful studies [Morcos et al, 2019, Orseau et al, 2020, Frankle et al, 2019, 2020, Malach et al, 2020, Pensia et al, 2020] are carried out to analyze these tickets, but it remains difficult to generalize to large models due to training cost. In an attempt, follow-up works , Tanaka et al, 2020 show that one can find tickets without training labels.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…State-of-the-art sparse training methods require up to 5× more training epochs compared to dense models[Evci et al, 2020] 2 An unstructured sparse model with 1% nonzero weights can be as slow as a dense model[Hooker, 2020] …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, deep NNs necessitate more computational resources, have higher energy consumption, and consequently lead to substantially higher CO 2 emissions [12]. The essay of the hardware lottery [13] highlighted the impact of available hardware system in determining which research ideas succeed (and fail). It is therein emphasized how the hardware lottery can delay research progress by casting successful ideas as failures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%