←back to thread

352 points ferriswil | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
djoldman ◴[] No.41889903[source]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00907

ABSTRACT

Large neural networks spend most computation on floating point tensor multiplications. In this work, we find that a floating point multiplier can be approximated by one integer adder with high precision. We propose the linear-complexity multiplication (L-Mul) algorithm that approximates floating point number multiplication with integer addition operations. The new algorithm costs significantly less computation resource than 8-bit floating point multiplication but achieves higher precision. Compared to 8-bit floating point multiplications, the proposed method achieves higher precision but consumes significantly less bit-level computation. Since multiplying floating point numbers requires substantially higher energy compared to integer addition operations, applying the L-Mul operation in tensor processing hardware can potentially reduce 95% energy cost by elementwise floating point tensor multiplications and 80% energy cost of dot products. We calculated the theoretical error expectation of L-Mul, and evaluated the algorithm on a wide range of textual, visual, and symbolic tasks, including natural language understanding, structural reasoning, mathematics, and commonsense question answering. Our numerical analysis experiments agree with the theoretical error estimation, which indicates that L-Mul with 4-bit mantissa achieves comparable precision as float8 e4m3 multiplications, and L-Mul with 3-bit mantissa outperforms float8 e5m2. Evaluation results on popular benchmarks show that directly applying L-Mul to the attention mechanism is almost lossless. We further show that replacing all floating point multiplications with 3-bit mantissa L-Mul in a transformer model achieves equivalent precision as using float8 e4m3 as accumulation precision in both fine-tuning and inference.

replies(3): >>41890324 #>>41892025 #>>41901112 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41890324[source]
Does this mean you can train efficiently without GPUs?

Presumably there will be a lot of interest.

replies(2): >>41890353 #>>41901656 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.41890353[source]
No. But it does potentially mean that either current or future-tweaked GPUs could run a lot more efficiently -- meaning much faster or with much less energy consumption.

You still need the GPU parallelism though.

replies(2): >>41890621 #>>41893598 #
fuzzfactor ◴[] No.41890621[source]
I had a feeling it had to be something like massive waste due to a misguided feature of the algorithms that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Once the "math is done" quite likely it would have paid off better than most investments for the top people to have spent a few short years working with grossly underpowered hardware until they could come up with amazing results there before scaling up. Rather than grossly overpowered hardware before there was even deep understanding of the underlying processes.

When you think about it, what we have seen from the latest ultra-high-powered "thinking" machines is truly so impressive. But if you are trying to fool somebody into believing that it's a real person it's still not "quite" there.

Maybe a good benchmark would be to take a regular PC, and without reliance on AI just pull out all the stops and put all the effort into fakery itself. No holds barred, any trick you can think of. See what the electronics is capable of this way. There are some smart engineers, this would only take a few years but looks like it would have been a lot more affordable.

Then with the same hardware if an AI alternative is not as convincing, something has got to be wrong.

It's good to find out this type of thing before you go overboard.

Regardless of speed or power, I never could have gotten an 8-bit computer to match the output of a 32-bit floating-point algorithm by using floating-point myself. Integers all the way and place the decimal where it's supposed to be when you're done.

Once it's really figured out, how do you think it would feel being the one paying the electric bills up until now?

replies(5): >>41890824 #>>41891053 #>>41892039 #>>41892366 #>>41895079 #
1. pcl ◴[] No.41891053{3}[source]
Isn’t this paper pretty much about spending a few short years to improve the performance? Or are you arguing that the same people who made breakthroughs over the last few years should have also done the optimization work?
replies(1): >>41891328 #
2. fuzzfactor ◴[] No.41891328[source]
>the same people who made breakthroughs over the last few years should have also done the optimization work

I never thought it would be ideal if it was otherwise, so I guess so.

When I first considered neural nets from state-of-the art vendors to assist with some non-linguistic situations over 30 years ago, it wasn't quite ready for prime time and I could accept that.

I just don't have generic situations all the time which would benefit me, so it's clearly my problems that have the deficiencies ;\

What's being done now with all the resources being thrown at it is highly impressive, and gaining all the time, no doubt about it. It's nice to know there are people that can afford it.

I truly look forward to more progress, and this may be the previously unreached milestone I have been detecting that might be a big one.

Still not good enough for what I need yet so far though. And I can accept that as easily as ever.

That's why I put up my estimation that not all of those 30+ years has been spent without agonizing over something ;)