Deep learning, the most important subfield of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) over the last decade, is considered one of the fundamental technologies underpinning the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But despite its record-breaking history, deep learning’s enormous appetite for compute and data means that sometimes it can be too costly to practically use. In this paper, we connect technical insights from deep learning scaling laws and transfer learning with the economics of IT to propose a framework for estimating the cost of deep learning computer vision systems to achieve a desired level of accuracy. Our tool can be of practical use to AI practitioners in industry or academia to guide investment decisions.

We investigate the rate at which algorithms for pre-training language models have improved since the advent of deep learning. Using a dataset of over 200 language model evaluations on Wikitext and Penn Treebank spanning 2012-2023, we find that the compute required to reach a set performance threshold has halved approximately every 8 months, with a 90\% confidence interval of around 2 to 22 months, substantially faster than hardware gains per Moore's Law. We estimate augmented scaling laws, which enable us to quantify algorithmic progress and determine the relative contributions of scaling models versus innovations in training algorithms. Despite the rapid pace of algorithmic progress and the development of new architectures such as the transformer, our analysis reveals that the increase in compute made an even larger contribution to overall performance improvements over this time period. Though limited by noisy benchmark data, our analysis quantifies the rapid progress in language modeling, shedding light on the relative contributions from compute and algorithms.

Pushing the boundaries of machine learning often requires exploring different hardware and software combinations. However, this ability to experiment with different systems can be at odds with the drive for efficiency, which has produced increasingly specialized AI hardware and incentivized consolidation around a narrow set of ML frameworks. Exploratory research can be further restricted if software and hardware are co-evolving, making it even harder to stray away from a given tooling stack. While this friction increasingly impacts the rate of innovation in machine learning, to our knowledge the lack of portability in tooling has not been quantified. In this work we ask: How portable are popular ML software frameworks? We conduct a large scale study of the portability of mainstream ML frameworks across different hardware types. Our findings paint an uncomfortable picture -- frameworks can lose more than 40% of their key functions when ported to other hardware. Worse, even when functions are portable, the slowdown in their performance can be extreme. Collectively, our results reveal how costly straying from a narrow set of hardware-software combinations can be - and thus how specialization incurs an exploration cost that can impede innovation in machine learning research.