Scaling Laws Do Not Scale

Overview

• The paper critically examines claims that as the size of training datasets for AI models increases, the model's performance will correspondingly increase (known as scaling laws).
• The authors argue that the scaling law relationship depends on the metrics used to measure performance, which may not align with how different communities perceive the quality of the model's output.
• As AI systems impact larger and more diverse groups of people, the values and preferences of the communities represented in the training or evaluation datasets may not be reflected in the metrics used to evaluate model performance.

Plain English Explanation

The paper challenges the idea that making AI models larger and training them on bigger and bigger datasets will always lead to better performance. The authors argue that this scaling law relationship depends on the specific ways that "performance" is measured, which may not match how different groups of people actually judge the quality of the model's outputs.

As AI systems start affecting more and more diverse communities, the values and preferences of those communities may not be fully represented in the datasets used to train the models or the metrics used to evaluate them. Different communities may have different ideas about what makes a good AI system, and these differences could lead to difficult choices about which metrics to use that don't satisfy everyone.

The authors suggest that the motivation for continuously expanding datasets may be based on flawed assumptions about model performance. Just because a model gets bigger and is trained on more data doesn't mean it will actually improve for everyone it affects. Instead, the authors encourage the AI field to rethink its values and norms, avoid claims of universality for large models, and explore more local, small-scale designs as alternatives to the push for ever-larger AI systems.

Technical Explanation

The paper draws on literature from social sciences and machine learning to critically examine the claims of "scaling laws" - the idea that as the size of a training dataset for an AI model increases, the model's performance will scale correspondingly.

The authors argue that this scaling law relationship depends on the specific metrics used to measure model performance, which may not accurately reflect how different groups of people perceive the quality of the model's outputs. As AI systems impact an ever-growing and more diverse set of communities, the values and preferences of those communities represented in the training or evaluation datasets may not be fully captured by the performance metrics.

Additionally, different communities may have values that are in tension with each other, making it difficult to choose metrics that satisfy everyone. This threatens the validity of claims that model performance universally improves as dataset size increases.

The paper concludes by suggesting that the drive to continuously expand datasets for AI training may be based on flawed assumptions about model performance. Models may not necessarily improve for all impacted communities as dataset size grows. The authors encourage the AI field to rethink its norms and values, resist claims of universality for large models, and explore more localized, small-scale designs as alternatives to the push for ever-larger AI systems.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important concerns about the limitations of scaling laws and the potential misalignment between performance metrics and the values of diverse communities impacted by AI systems.

The authors acknowledge that as AI systems become more pervasive, the number of distinct communities represented in training or evaluation datasets will grow. This increases the likelihood that the preferences and values of certain communities will not be reflected in the performance metrics used to judge model quality.

While the paper does not present empirical evidence of this misalignment, it provides a compelling theoretical framework and cites relevant literature from the social sciences to support its claims. The authors encourage further research to better understand how different communities perceive and value the outputs of AI models.

One potential limitation of the paper is that it does not offer specific solutions or alternative approaches beyond suggesting more localized, small-scale designs and rethinking norms in AI development. Further research could explore practical ways to incorporate diverse community values into model development and evaluation processes.

Nevertheless, the paper makes an important contribution by challenging the unquestioned pursuit of ever-larger AI models and datasets. It encourages the AI community to think critically about the assumptions underlying scaling laws and to consider the ethical implications of developing models that may not serve the needs of all affected groups.

Conclusion

This paper provides a critical examination of the claims around scaling laws in AI model performance, arguing that the relationship between dataset size and model quality is more complex than often assumed.

The key insight is that the metrics used to measure model performance may not align with how different communities perceive the value and quality of the model's outputs. As AI systems become more widespread, this misalignment is likely to become more pronounced, potentially leading to difficult choices about which metrics to prioritize.

The paper encourages the AI community to rethink its norms and values, resist claims of universality for large models, and explore more localized, small-scale designs as alternatives to the relentless pursuit of ever-larger datasets and models. This challenge to the scaling law narrative is an important contribution that could help steer the field of AI development in a more thoughtful and inclusive direction.