COMPUTATIONAL POWER AND THE SOCIAL
IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Tim Hwang1
Machine learning is a computational process. To that end, it is inextricably
tied to computational power - the tangible material of chips and
semiconductors that the algorithms of machine intelligence operate on.
Most obviously, computational power and computing architectures shape
the speed of training and inference in machine learning, and therefore
influence the rate of progress in the technology. But, these relationships are
more nuanced than that: hardware shapes the methods used by researchers
and engineers in the design and development of machine learning models.
Characteristics such as the power consumption of chips also define where
and how machine learning can be used in the real world.
In a broader perspective, computational power is also important because of
its specific geographies. Semiconductors are designed, fabricated, and
deployed through a complex international supply chain. Market structure
and competition among companies in this space influence the progress of
machine learning. Moreover, since these supply chains are also considered
significant from a national security perspective, hardware becomes an
arena in which government industrial and trade policy has a direct impact
on the fundamental machinery necessary for artificial intelligence (AI).
This paper aims to dig more deeply into the relationship between
computational power and the development of machine learning.
Specifically, it examines how changes in computing architectures, machine
learning methodologies, and supply chains might influence the future of AI.
In doing so, it seeks to trace a set of specific relationships between this
underlying hardware layer and the broader social impacts and risks around
AI. On one hand, this examination shines a spotlight on how hardware
works to exacerbate a range of concerns around ubiquitous surveillance,
technological unemployment, and geopolitical conflict. On the other, it also
highlights the potentially significant role that shaping the development of
computing power might play in addressing these concerns.
***
1

Research Affiliate, MIT Media Lab.

1

Introduction

1

Part I
Machine Learning and Computational Power
The Tropes of Computational Power

6
7

Part II
Specialization in Computational Power
Impact: The Geography of Training and Inference

14
14

Part III
Supply Chain and Computational Power
Impact: The Geopolitics of Machine Learning

18
32

Part IV
Computational Power as Data Substitute
Impact: Computational Power and Economic Impact

36
36

Conclusion: Prospects for Governance

43

***
INTRODUCTION
Machine learning is a computational process. To that end, it is
inextricably tied to computational power - the tangible material of chips and
semiconductors that the algorithms of machine intelligence operate on.
Most obviously, computational power and computing architectures shape
the speed of training and inference in machine learning, and therefore
influence the rate of progress in the technology. But, these relationships are
more nuanced than that: hardware shapes the methods used by researchers
and engineers in the design and development of machine learning models.
Characteristics such as the power consumption of chips also define where
and how machine learning can be used in the real world.
In a broader perspective, computational power is also important
because of its specific geographies. Semiconductors are designed,
fabricated, and deployed through a complex international supply chain.
Market structure and competition among companies in this space influence
the progress of machine learning. Moreover, since these supply chains are
also considered significant from a national security perspective, hardware

2

becomes an arena in which government industrial and trade policy has a
direct impact on the fundamental machinery necessary for artificial
intelligence (AI).
Despite this, many analyses of the social impact of the current wave
of progress in AI have not substantively brought the dimension of hardware
into their accounts. While a common trope in both the popular press and
scholarly literature is to highlight the massive increase in computational
power that has enabled the recent breakthroughs in machine learning, the
analysis frequently goes no further than this observation around magnitude.
This paper aims to dig more deeply into the relationship between
computational power and the development of machine learning.
Specifically, it examines how changes in computing architectures, machine
learning methodologies, and supply chains might influence the future of AI.
In doing so, it seeks to trace a set of specific relationships between this
underlying hardware layer and the broader social impacts and risks around
AI. On one hand, this examination shines a spotlight on how hardware
works to exacerbate a range of concerns around ubiquitous surveillance,
technological unemployment, and geopolitical conflict. On the other, it also
highlights the potentially significant role that shaping the development of
computing power might play in addressing these concerns.
Part I will examine the role that computational power has played in
the progress of machine learning, arguing that its impact has been
somewhat flattened in recent accounts looking at the social impact of the
technology. Part II will look at trends towards increasing specialization in
the hardware used for machine learning, and its implications for control and
privacy in the space. Part III will look at the semiconductor supply chain,
and its implications for the geopolitics of machine learning. Part IV will
examine research developments changing the balance between data and
computational power in the workflow of machine learning, and its influence
on the economic impact of the technology. It will then conclude with some
remarks on the potential role of hardware as a lever for policy action in the
space.
PART I: MACHINE LEARNING AND COMPUTATIONAL POWER

3

AI has historically moved through multiple cycles of progress and
optimism followed by setbacks and pessimism, so called “AI winters”.2
Present-day excitement around AI, and more specifically the recent
breakthroughs in the subfield of machine learning, represent only the latest
upswing in this historical pattern.
Machine learning itself, the study of algorithms which improve
themselves through data, is not a new domain of research. The
fundamentals underlying the modern advances in the field were established
by researchers in the 1950s and developed throughout the subsequent
decades.3
However, neural networks - the specific technique of machine
learning driving much of the commercial interest in AI today - were still
considered a niche area of research only until relatively recently. As one
popular account has put it, “for much of its history most computer scientists
saw it [neural networks] as vaguely disreputable, even mystical.”4 It was
recognized early in this history that the neural networks proposed during the
1950s and 1960s were limited by the comparatively minimal processing
power available at the time.5 The continued growth of computational power,
along with the accumulation of large datasets during the 1990s and 2000s,
played a major role in revitalizing progress in neural networks and
motivating significant investment within the field of AI more broadly.
The field of computer vision, which focuses on advancing the ability
for machines to extract understanding from images and video, offers one
representative example on this point. “Traditional” approaches to these
tasks in the 1990s and early 2000s focused on algorithms which specified a
set of defined features that would be used to process and classify an image.6

For an account of this history, see generally John Markoff, Machines of Loving Grace:
The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots (2015).
3 See, e.g., B. Farley & W. Clark, Simulation of self-organizing systems by digital
computer, 4 Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory 76–84
(1954).
4 Gideon Lewis-Kraus, The Great A.I. Awakening, The New York Times, December 14,
2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html (last
visited Mar 20, 2018).
5 See Marvin Minsky & Seymour A. Papert, Perceptrons: An Introduction to
Computational Geometry (1969) (noting these limitations).
6 See, e.g., D.G. Lowe, Object recognition from local scale-invariant features, 1150–1157
vol.2 (1999), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/790410/ (last visited Mar 20, 2018)
(describing the SIFT algorithm, one representative approach).
2

4

Neural networks, in contrast, learn the relevant features for classification
rather than having them pre-designed into the algorithm.7
Expanding computational power and the availability of data changed
the practice of computer vision. On the data front, the growth of the
consumer web produced a vast library of images for machine learning
systems to train on. ImageNet, an annotated dataset of 14 million images in
20 thousand categories assembled by workers on the Amazon Mechanical
Turk platform, provided a common dataset for researchers to work with.8
Computational power also continued to increase in the 2000s, rising from
37 million transistors per chip in 2000 to 2.3 billion transistors per chip by
2009.9 This was augmented by the finding that a particular kind of
computational architecture - the GPU - was particularly well-suited as a
platform for neural networks, a development discussed in more detail in
Part II.10
Leveraging both of these assets, neural networks were able to
significantly surpass the performance of earlier techniques in the space.11
The ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge is a commonly
cited marker of this transition. Hosted since 2010, the Challenge brings
together researchers to compete in designing systems to solve a set of visual
recognition tasks.12 Performance in 2010 and 2011, which featured teams
using traditional techniques in the space, were never able to reduce error
rates below 25%, with most teams showing much higher rates of error.13

See, e.g., Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever & Geoffrey E. Hinton, ImageNet classification
with deep convolutional neural networks, 60 Communications of the ACM 84–90 (2017)
(demonstrating this learned feature approach).
8 Dave Gershgorn, The data that transformed AI research—and possibly the world Quartz,
https://qz.com/1034972/the-data-that-changed-the-direction-of-ai-research-and-possiblythe-world/ (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
9 Moore’s Law: Transistors per microprocessor, Our World in Data,
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/transistors-per-microprocessor (last visited Mar 20,
2018).
10 See Rajat Raina, Anand Madhavan & Andrew Y. Ng, Large-scale deep unsupervised
learning using graphics processors, 1–8 (2009),
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1553374.1553486 (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
11 Cf. From not working to neural networking, The Economist, 2016,
https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700756-artificial-intelligence-boombased-old-idea-modern-twist-not (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
12 ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC), http://www.imagenet.org/challenges/LSVRC/ (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
13 Id.
7

5

AlexNet, a system submitted to the competition by researchers
Geoffrey Hinton, Ilya Sutskever, and Alex Krizhevsky in 2012, was both
the first entry to apply neural networks in the Challenge and the first to
achieve a below 25% error rate.14 The excitement around these results, and
the margin of improvement over established techniques, led one researcher
to state that the “Imagenet 2012 event was definitely what triggered the big
explosion of AI today”.15
Computational power has for this reason been fundamental to the
present-day breakthroughs in machine learning. Even if the necessary data
been widely available at an earlier point historically, a lack of
computational power would have effectively prevented neural networks
from achieving their current level of performance.
The Tropes of Computational Power
The narrative of computational power and machine learning typically
ends here. Recent pieces examining these technological breakthroughs have
often focused more on the implications of what the technology can do,
rather than the implications of how it is being done.16 To the extent that
computational power is mentioned, it is typically addressed simply as an
enabling factor in the emergence of machine learning. The prevailing
attribute highlighted in these accounts has tended to be one of magnitude:
the processing power of the chips running machine learning have been seen
as their primary contribution.
The 2016 White House report Preparing for the Future of Artificial
Intelligence is illustrative. The paper focuses on computational power only
in passing as one of the three factors enabling the present-day
breakthroughs in machine learning. “[T]he availability of big
data…dramatically improved machine learning approaches and
algorithms…the capabilities of more powerful computers.”17 An

Id.
See supra note 8 (for a visualization of these results).
16 See, e.g., JURI Committee, European Civil Law Rules in Robotics (2016), available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU(2016)571
379_EN.pdf; Urs Gasser, AI and the Law: Setting the Stage, Medium (2017),
https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/ai-and-the-law-setting-the-stage-48516fda1b11
(last visited Mar 20, 2018).
17 White House National Science and Technology Council, Preparing for the Future of
Artificial Intelligence 6 (2016), available at
14
15

6

accompanying paper released at the same time, The National Artificial
Intelligence Research and Development Plan, highlights improved
hardware for machine learning as a priority, but only to the extent that chips
with higher levels of performance are needed to drive the technology
forwards.18 Other reports from the European Union, civil society groups,
and researchers on the topic of AI have followed a similar set of themes
when considering the role of computational power.19
This narrative perhaps leaves out an important part of the story. Such
a shorthand enables a focus on the numerous problematic ways that
machine learning might be applied and the implications of those
applications for justice, equity, and a host of other values. However, it also
flattens out the role that computational power plays in these issues to simply
that of a trigger for technological progress. This may miss the significant
and nuanced ways that hardware influences the impact of AI on these
broader values and social concerns.
Computational power does more than simply make the present-day
breakthroughs in machine learning possible. The medium is a significant
message here: hardware actively shapes the landscape of what can be done
with the technology of machine learning, and plays a significant role in
influencing how it will evolve going forwards.
The contours of computational power play a role in defining who has
control over and access to the benefits of machine learning, and the actors
that will play a role in its governance. It plays a role in the politics of the
technology, both at the level of an individual citizen and in the broader
competition between states. Computational power, in defining the speed at
which machine learning models may trained and experimented on, shapes
the speed at which the technology advances and therefore serves to define
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/
NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf.
18 White House National Science and Technology Council, The National Artificial
Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan 21 (2016).
19 See e.g., Royal Society (Great Britain), Machine learning: the power and promise of
computers that learn by example (2017) available at
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/machine-learning/publications/machinelearning-report.pdf; House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Robotics and
Artificial Intelligence (2016),
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/145.pdf; World
Economic Forum, Assessing the Risk of Artificial Intelligence, Global Risks Report 2017,
http://wef.ch/2izSQRP (last visited Mar 22, 2018); David Bollier, Artificial Intelligence:
The Great Disruptor, Aspen Institute (2018) available at
http://csreports.aspeninstitute.org/documents/AI2017.pdf.

7

its broader economic impact. These impacts turn on more than simply the
amount of processing power available, but on the details of computational
architecture, supply chains, and the co-evolution of the machine learning
field itself.
To that end, the evolving research and commercial ecosystem around
hardware is more than just a sideshow: shifts in these underlying
technologies have a significant place in understanding the impact of AI on
society as a whole. Parts II, III, and IV work to map these many connections
by drawing the lines from the changing landscape of computational power
to the bigger social challenges surrounding AI.
PART II: SPECIALIZATION IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER
Computational power is not a simple matter of magnitude. The
specific architecture of a chip plays a major role in determining whether or
not it is effective in dealing with a given computational task. In general, the
industry has tended towards increasingly specialized platforms for machine
learning as the field continues to grow and attract commercial interest. In
this sense, hardware has moved in a direction opposite to software: a shift
towards narrower specialization in chips has proceeded even as the research
field has been focused on building ever more general learning systems.
Two dynamics shape this marketplace for machine learning hardware.
One is an inverse relationship between performance and flexibility.20 While
general purpose computing power can take on a wide range of tasks and can
be easily configured to take on new tasks, it tends to be outpaced by
hardware which is built for a specific purpose.21 However, this increased
performance comes at a cost: specialized hardware accommodates a
relatively smaller set of use cases and has an architecture which is less easy
to change after it is deployed.22 These specialized platforms are also
frequently more expensive than commodified general platforms.23 One
overarching question is whether the demand for machine learning driven
See generally Inside the Microsoft FPGA-based configurable cloud, Channel 9,
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2017/B8063 (last visited Mar 20, 2018)
(discussing these trade-offs).
21 See Griffin Lacey, Graham W. Taylor & Shawki Areibi, Deep Learning on FPGAs:
Past, Present, and Future, arXiv:1602.04283, 6 (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04283
(last visited Feb 13, 2018) (discussing cost differentials).
22 Id.
23 Id.
20

8

products and the research community will tend over time to favor
architectures that are more or less flexible given this tradeoff.
A second important dynamic is that the hardware for training a
machine learning model to accomplish a task can differ significantly from
the hardware used to conduct inference with an already trained model. This
is due to the different demands at each step of the machine learning
workflow. For instance, energy consumption may matter for a computer
vision system operating on a mobile device, though it may not matter when
that computer vision system is being trained initially in a data center.24
Latency - the time delay between input and output of a system - might be a
significant factor in a high-speed navigation context, where speed of
inference would reduce the time needed for a course correction.25 However,
as with energy consumption, latency may not prove to be as significant
when the navigation system is being trained. These considerations influence
what kinds of hardware are used at which points in the lifecycle of a
machine learning system. They can be viewed as separate though
overlapping markets, with hardware platforms being offered either for
training or inference, and some offering support for both.26
Background: CPUs to GPUs
Graphics processing units (GPUs) form the present-day backbone of
the machine learning workflow.27 GPUs are the primary platform for both
training and inference, and are widely used both for basic research and in
the practical development and deployment of machine learning driven
products in the marketplace.28
The outsize role that GPUs play in machine learning is the result of an
unexpected historical convergence. As their name suggests, GPUs were
24 See Vivienne Sze et al., Efficient Processing of Deep Neural Networks: A Tutorial and
Survey, arXiv:1703.09039, 5-6 (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09039 (last visited Feb 13,
2018).
25 Id at 26.
26 See, e.g., Jeff Dean and Urs Hölzle, Build and train machine learning models on our new
Google Cloud TPUs, Google (2017), https://www.blog.google/topics/google-cloud/googlecloud-offer-tpus-machine-learning/ (last visited Mar 20, 2018) (earlier generations of
Google’s specialized machine learning chips were focused on inference, with the latest
version supporting both inference and training).
27 See Deloitte, Hitting the Accelerator: The Next Generation of Machine-Leaning Chips
(2017), available at
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Images/infographics/technologyme
diatelecommunications/gx-deloitte-tmt-2018-nextgen-machine-learning-report.pdf.
28 Id. at 1.

9

originally designed to support computer graphics and image processing
applications.29 To accomplish this, GPUs feature an architecture which
distributes computational tasks across a large number of cores to be
processed in parallel.30 This is in contrast to central processing units
(CPUs), which feature a smaller number of more powerful cores that are
optimized for handling just a few tasks simultaneously.31
This parallel architecture allows the GPU to be uniquely well suited
for machine learning applications. At its root, neural network training and
inference relies on the execution of a large number of identical matrix
multiplication calculations.32 This uniformity enables these operations to be
parallelized and distributed across the many cores offered by the GPU.33
This enables the GPU to outperform CPU architectures which have
comparatively more powerful processors but manage tasks in a more serial
format.34
Increasing Specialization: FPGAs and ASICs
The repurposing of GPUs as the primary hardware platform for
machine learning reflects a selection among available technologies. As
interest in machine learning has continued to grow, so has the notion of
developing hardware entirely purpose-built for these applications become
more attractive. Discussion within the industry has focused on the
possibility of using field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) and
application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) as the next primary
platforms for machine learning.35
FPGAs are distinct from CPUs and GPUs in that they do not run
programs in stored memory. Instead, they are collection of standardized
“logic blocks” whose relationships can be configured by a programmer

Id. at 2.
See supra note 10.
31 Id.
32 See supra note 22 at 12.
33 See supra note 10.
34 See Cade Metz, The Race To Build An AI Chip For Everything Just Got Real, WIRED,
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/race-make-ai-chips-everything-heating-fast/ (last visited
Feb 13, 2018) (describing some of the limitations of the CPU).
35 See, e.g., Karl Freund, Will ASIC Chips Become The Next Big Thing In AI?, Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2017/08/04/will-asic-chips-become-the-nextbig-thing-in-ai/ (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
29
30

10

once the chip is received from a manufacturer.36 ASICs are purpose-built
chip boards which are specific to a purpose and cannot be easily
reconfigured after they are manufactured.37
FPGAs and ASICs are particularly attractive in the context of
machine learning inference. Both devices consume less energy than CPUs
and GPUs, and their specialization allows for greater speed.38 These gains
come at the loss of flexibility and an increased cost. FPGAs and ASICs
cannot be as easily and quickly configured to run a wide range of tasks.
Both are relatively more expensive when compared with CPUs and GPUs.
This is particularly the case with ASICs, which are “bespoke” projects that
are expensive and time-consuming to produce. This makes them costeffective as a platform only in significant quantities.39
However, these benefits may outweigh the costs, particularly in
circumstances where a specific kind of machine learning inference is
reliably needed at a mass scale. Project Catapult, an initiative launched by
Microsoft, has shown high performance for FPGAs as the core computing
unit in their data centers.40 FPGAs and ASICs have also been considered a
promising approach in the autonomous vehicles context, where the tasks a
machine learning system will need to take on will be relatively stable and
where chips will be needed for a large number of vehicles.41

36 See What is an FPGA? Field Programmable Gate Array,
https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/fpga/what-is-an-fpga.html (last visited
Mar 20, 2018).
37 Jeff Dean, Machine Learning for Systems and Systems for Machine Learning, NIPS
2017, available at http://learningsys.org/nips17/assets/slides/dean-nips17.pdf (noting the
design challenges with ASICs).
38 See supra notes 19-20.
39 Id.
40 See Kalin Ovtcharov et al., Accelerating deep convolutional neural networks using
specialized hardware, Microsoft Research Whitepaper, 2 (2015), available at
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/CNN20Whitepaper.pdf.
41 See, e.g., ASIC might be the mainstream chip for autonomous driving, a chance for
Chinese start-ups, VehicleTrend, https://www.vehicle-trend.com/Knowledge/201801081131.html (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Phil Kalaf, Self-Driving Cars, Wireless Data? It’s
Time to Thank the Humble FPGA. IDS (2017), http://www.idsforward.com/wireless-datathank-humble-fpga/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Yu Wang et al, Reconfigurable Processor
for Deep Learning in Autonomous Vehicles,
https://www.itu.int/en/journal/001/Documents/itu2017-2.pdf (2017); Harsh Chauhan,
Can Intel Dominate This Market by Overcoming This Smaller Rival? The Motley Fool
(2017), https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/24/can-intel-dominate-this-market-by-

11

While FPGAs and ASICs seem to show promise in the inference
context, they have traditionally had some limitations that have made them
less attractive as platforms for training. For one, FPGAs and ASICs have
tended to be less accurate, relying on “fixed point” computation or featuring
comparatively limited floating-point performance.42 This has made them
comparatively limited in performing the accurate level of calculation
needed in the training process. These devices have also had limited external
memory bandwidth, preventing them from efficiently conducting the matrix
multiplication needed for training.43
However, the potential speed and energy consumption gains presented
by FPGA and ASIC architectures have encouraged research which appears
to be eliminating some of these limitations over time. In 2017, Intel
researchers released software which maximizes data reuse and minimizes
external memory bandwidth to boost training performance on FPGAs.44 The
latest generation of Google’s “Tensor Processing Unit” (TPU), a specialized
ASIC, supports both training and inference.45 The claimed improvements
are quite significant. One recent talk from Google in 2017 noted that the
TPU ASIC was able to execute training tasks at ten to fourteen times the
speed of their previous production setups with a relatively smaller number
of machines.46
Moving Forwards
It remains unclear whether or not more specialized, less flexible
hardware will unseat the preeminent place of the GPU in machine learning
training and inference. Producers of FPGAs and ASICs are releasing
performance benchmarks showing significant improvements over the GPU
for both kinds of tasks. Google claims that its TPU ASIC is able to conduct
overcoming-this.aspx (last visited Feb 20, 2018) (noting the application of FPGAs in the
autonomous vehicles context).
42 See Brian Bailey, Machine Learning’s Growing Divide, Semiconductor Engineering,
https://semiengineering.com/machine-learnings-growing-divide/ (last visited Mar 12, 2018)
(reviewing these issues); Understanding Peak Floating-Point Performance Claims,
https://www.altera.com/en_US/pdfs/literature/wp/wp-01222-understanding-peak-floatingpoint-performance-claims.pdf (last visited Feb 15, 2018) (reviewing the floating point
issues in more depth).
43 Id.
44 Utku Aydonat et al., An OpenCL(TM) Deep Learning Accelerator on Arria 10,
arXiv:1701.03534 [cs] (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.03534 (last visited Mar 12, 2018).
45 See supra note 34.
46 See supra note 34 (describing these improvements).

12

inference fifteen to thirty times faster than contemporary GPUs and CPUs.47
In a similar vein, Graphcore - one prominent startup focusing on specialized
machine learning hardware - claims that eight of its proprietary “IPU” cards
are equivalent to 128 contemporary GPUs.48
Despite this, benchmarking issues persist and it is challenging to
evaluate these claims in a systematic way.49 For its part, GPU leader Nvidia
has challenged the performance claimed by Google of its TPUs, noting that
it failed to compare its chips against its latest generation of hardware.50 At
the moment, the semiconductor industry does not yet have a common
scheme for evaluating the performance of machine learning specialized
hardware as it does in the CPU space.51 This is significant because the
specific architecture of the neural network and how it is implemented can
have a significant impact on reported performance.52
Though some commentators have framed the industry choices
between GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs as a mutually exclusive ones, it is not
clear that this will be the case in practice.53 Even if FPGA and ASIC
designs do not ultimately become a new standard for training and inference
in machine learning writ large, it seems likely that they will become a
natural option for certain applications of machine learning systems,
particularly in the consumer products context. Recent moves by industry
leaders seems to recognize this reality. Despite its leadership and
championing of a GPU-focused model, Nvidia’s latest Drive PX product
features a specialized “Deep Learning Accelerator” (DLA) module as it

Norman P. Jouppi et al, In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing
Unit, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.04760.pdf (last visited Feb 15, 2018).
48 Graphcore Benchmarks, Presentation at NIPS 2017, available at
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/729091/NIPS2017/NIPS%2017%20%20benchmarks%20final.pdf?t=1521107772551.
49 See supra note 22, at 26-27 (describing the many influences on chip performance).
50 Jensen Huang, AI Drives the Rise of Accelerated Computing in Data Centers, Nvidia
Blog, https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2017/04/10/ai-drives-rise-accelerated-computingdatacenter/ (Apr 10, 2017).
51 See, e.g., SPEC CPU 2017, https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/.
52 See supra note 22, at 26-27.
53 See, e.g., FPGA Based Deep Learning Accelerators Take on ASICs, The Next Platform
(2016), https://www.nextplatform.com/2016/08/23/fpga-based-deep-learning-acceleratorstake-asics/ (last visited Feb 13, 2018); Does the future lie with CPU+GPU or
CPU+FPGA?, Scientific Computing World, https://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/analysis-opinion/does-future-lie-cpugpu-or-cpufpga (last visited Feb
20, 2018).
47

13

attempts to cater to applications in autonomous vehicles.54 Nvidia has also
open-sourced its designs for the DLA, a move likely to drive down the cost
of this specialized hardware going forwards by enabling others to
manufacture the same designs.55
These trends provide a framework for thinking about the economics
of various machine learning applications, and how and where the
technology might be used in practice. To that end, it begs the question of
how these shifts in hardware specialization might influence the overall
impact of machine learning on society and the governance of the
technology.
Impact: The Geography of Training and Inference
Machine learning is not an abstract force, but a computational task
that takes place somewhere. Hardware capabilities and the particular
economics of processors are critical since they define the spatial dimensions
of machine learning and what it likely to be applied towards.
Power consumption defines whether or not machine learning
computation can be done on a small, mobile device, or must have access to
a reliable and continuous power source. High energy costs limit the ability
to embed machine learning systems directly on a device. In the very least, it
limits the application of machine learning to situations with sufficient
connectivity for a device to communicate with a larger pool of
computational power hosted in the “cloud.”56
Latency is also crucial in this respect. Even if a chip is able to operate
at low power on a mobile device, it may be ineffectual for a particular use in
the field if it is insufficiently responsive for the intended purpose. This acts
as a bar to certain real-time or mission-critical uses of machine learning
where an alternative cloud architecture would also produce similarly
unacceptable levels of latency.

Karl Freund, Why Nvidia is Building Its Own TPU, Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2017/05/15/why-nvidia-is-building-its-own-tpu
(last visited Mar 20, 2017).
55 See Tom Simonite, To Compete With New Rivals, Chipmaker Nvidia Shares Its Secrets,
WIRED, Sept 29, 2017, https://www.wired.com/story/to-compete-with-new-rivalschipmaker-nvidia-shares-its-secrets/ (last visited Feb 20, 2018).
56 See supra note 22, at 5-6 (discussing these different configurations).
54

14

Power consumption and latency are barriers to the application of
machine learning within certain domains. This includes the placement of
these systems on small devices with an untethered power source, and in low
bandwidth situations with poor connectivity. The rise of ASICs and FPGAs
- as well as ongoing improvements to GPUs - suggest that machine learning
hardware will erode these limitations on the placement of machine learning
systems over time, particularly for mass produced consumer products that
have economies of scale.
The Geography of Inference
These developments offer a mixed blessing to those concerned about
the harmful possibilities of machine learning inference. Machine learning
can increasingly be integrated into a range of different products and services
and used in situations where it was previously considered impractical to do
so. For civil libertarians, FPGAs and ASICs enable the expansion of
machine learning as a means of conducting surveillance: small, low power
devices can now incorporate the advances of computer vision to recognize
people and objects even in areas with low bandwidth. For those worried
about the misuse of machine learning by “bad actors”, specialized hardware
makes it more possible to benefit from the technology without reliance on
cloud services where harmful activity might be more easily tracked and
halted.57
Also concerning is the fact that the more inflexible architectures of
FPGAs and ASICs might potentially make it more challenging to repair
machine learning systems when flaws are discovered. A growing body of
research continues to highlight the point both that machine learning systems
frequently can render biased, discriminatory results, and are potentially
vulnerable to malicious manipulation.58 Where a trained machine learning
model is “hard wired” into a chip, the discovery that it has these flaws may
make repair a more expensive and protracted process as it requires a
For a review of these concerns, see, e.g., Miles Brundage et al, The Malicious Use of
Artificial Intelligence (2018), available at https://maliciousaireport.com/.
58 See, e.g., Joy Buolamwini & Timnit Gebru, Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy
Disparities in Commercial Gender Classiﬁcation, PMLR 81:1–15, 2018, available at
http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf; Solon Barocas &
Andrew D. Selbst, Big Data’s Disparate Impact (2016),
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2477899 (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Ian Goodfellow et al,
Attacking Machine Learning with Adversarial Examples, OpenAI Blog (2017),
https://blog.openai.com/adversarial-example-research/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Tom B.
Brown et al., Adversarial Patch, arXiv:1712.09665 [cs] (2017),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09665 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
57

15

replacement of the processor itself, rather than modification of software.
This problem applies with particular force in an “embedded” setting where
chips are sold and distributed with a product and there is no centralized
means of changing their behavior once they have left the factory.
At the same time, FPGAs and ASICs also raise the possibility that
machine learning may be architected in a more robustly privacy-protecting
ways going forwards. Since specialized computing power enables machine
learning inference to be done on the device itself, it also opens the
possibility that machine learning capabilities might be provided without
ever having personal data leave a device. Consider a computer vision
system which helps users quickly sort through their photos to find friends
and family members. At present, the energy costs of inference might require
that these photos be uploaded from a smartphone to a central server to be
processed and tagged.59 Specialized hardware might enable an alternative
architecture in which the machine learning model is embedded on the
smartphone itself, such that the photos themselves do not need to be shared
with a third-party to be analyzed by the system.60
This remains up the air as FPGAs and ASICs for machine learning
enter the scene and attempt to find viable niches in the application of the
technology. The economics of these hardware platforms will influence the
viability of alternative architectures in various markets, and in doing so will
inform whether advocates and policymakers are able to argue for the
feasibility of more privacy sensitive approaches to machine learning going
forwards.
The Geography of Training
It is important to recognize that the geography of training may look
quite different from the geography of inference.61 As discussed above,
FPGAs and ASICs have been traditionally somewhat limited as platforms
for the training of machine learning systems. While the possibilities of
using specialized hardware for training continue to be developed by Google
See supra note 22 at 5-6.
See, e.g., Ben Popper, Google’s new Clips camera is invasive, creepy, and perfect for a
parent like me The Verge (2017), https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/5/16428708/googleclips-camera-privacy-parents-children (last visited Mar 21, 2018) (describing an
architecture along these lines).
61 Nvidia, GPU-Based Deep Learning Inference: A Performance and Power Analysis, 4-5
(2015), available at https://www.nvidia.com/content/tegra/embeddedsystems/pdf/jetson_tx1_whitepaper.pdf (noting the differing demands of training and
inference).
59
60

16

and other companies, the reality in the near-term seems to be that training
will remain the province of the GPU for many researchers and practitioners.
Combined with the fact that training is likely to continue being
computationally intensive for the foreseeable future, it is likely that the
creation of machine learning models will continue to happen within
centralized data centers.
FPGAs and ASICs therefore seem likely to have a differential impact
on the geography of machine learning. In the past, pre-existing data center
infrastructure, business models, and the energy consumption of existing
processors tended to encourage an architecture where training and inference
were situated in the same, centralized locations. As this specialized
hardware matures, it seems likely to encourage a more distributed pattern in
inference, permitting the application of machine learning “on device” in a
broader set of contexts. At the same time, the continuing computational
costs and energy requirements of training mean that the creation of machine
learning systems will continue to largely take place in a relatively smaller
number of central facilities.
This geographic pattern has implications for the governance of
machine learning. Training of the most complex, sophisticated models will
continue to take place in a small number of locations among the set of
actors who have the financial resources to maintain or rent the
computational power necessary. However, once trained, machine learning
models can be increasingly diffused and distributed. No doubt some types
of machine learning models will continue to be offered “as a service,” with
inference taking place in the cloud. However, FPGAs and ASICs open the
door to inference no longer being tethered in this particular way.
Simultaneously, these platforms - ASICs in particular - are more inflexible,
making modifications after distribution more difficult.
Whereas in the past it was more possible to repair flaws in machine
learning models after training and deployment by directly modifying the
model provided to many endpoints through the cloud, the specialization of
hardware suggests an environment where these harms may be more
challenging to rectify in the post-training phase. “Hard-wired” chips may be
difficult to recall quickly, or otherwise difficult to modify when in the field.
This may put increased pressure on companies to engage in more thorough
pre-deployment checks and verification on these systems, rather than
adopting a development approach that takes a more “launch-and-iterate”
stance. From a governance perspective, these less easily rectifiable
downstream harms may push regulators towards an approach that puts a

17

growing set of responsibilities on the entities creating and providing
platforms for creating machine learning models to take precautions prior to
wider distribution.
It is worth recognizing that the continued development of the machine
learning field may alter this balance over time. Progress continues to be
made in the subfield of federated learning - which envisions an architecture
in which many independent, distributed processors train locally and share
updates to a model with one another.62 This work may become more
practically feasible to implement as ASICs for machine learning mature and
increasingly allow embedded training to happen on a device. Breakthroughs
in one-shot learning, which would enable the effective training of models
with a relatively smaller number of examples, might also lower the
computational bar to executing training tasks in a more distributed way.63
PART III: SUPPLY CHAIN AND COMPUTATIONAL POWER
CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs are all ultimately products in a
complex global supply chain for semiconductors. Beyond simply
connecting changing computational architectures to the social impact of
machine learning as we did in the previous section, we can dig deeper to
examine how the commercial specifics of its manufacture also has broader
implications.
Both the geography of semiconductor manufacturing and its place as a
strategic asset in the context of national security make it likely that
computing power will become an important arena in the geopolitics of AI.
This seems to be particularly the case as China increasingly invests in
becoming a leader in machine learning while continuing an ongoing effort
to reshape the global semiconductor industry.
The Semiconductor Supply Chain
The hardware platforms discussed in Part II are just one facet of the
much broader industry for semiconductors. Semiconductor chips, “tiny
62 See, e.g., Jakub Konečný et al., Federated Optimization: Distributed Machine Learning
for On-Device Intelligence, arXiv:1610.02527 [cs] (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02527
(last visited Mar 21, 2018).
63 See, e.g., Adam Santoro et al., One-shot Learning with Memory-Augmented Neural
Networks, arXiv:1605.06065 [cs] (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06065 (last visited Mar
21, 2018).

18

electronic device[s] comprised of billions of components that store, move,
and process data” are the “enabling technology of the information age.”64
These chips give computers the power to run software applications, and are
the key building block for a range of other devices “from cell phones and
gaming systems to aircraft and industrial machinery to military equipment
and weapons.”65 Not surprisingly given their broad scope of application,
semiconductors are a massive global industry. In 2015, worldwide
semiconductor sales were $335 billion, growing 15% since 2012.66
Many production steps are required to deliver a finished
semiconductor chip. Some companies are “integrated device
manufacturers”, or IDMs, which manage all aspects of semiconductor
production from start to finish. This includes design, manufacturing,
assembly, testing, and packaging.67 Companies adopting this model include
Intel, Samsung, and Texas Instruments.68
However, many businesses specialize only in a particular part of this
supply chain, contracting out tasks to other companies in the ecosystem as
needed. Of particular importance in the discussion of machine learning
hardware is the role of so-called “fabless foundries.” These businesses focus
on the design of semiconductor chips, and contract out the manufacturing,
often called “fabrication,” of the final product.69 Companies adopting this
model include AMD, Broadcom, and Qualcomm.70 Many of the companies
leading the development of machine learning specific hardware are
“fabless”. This allows these businesses to avoid the massive capital outlay
and expense of building and maintaining a chip “fab”. Building a single
advanced plant for fabricating semiconductors can cost up to $20 billion.71

Michaela D. Platzer and John F. Sargent Jr., U.S. Semiconductor Manufacturing:
Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Policy, Congressional Research Service 1
(2016) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44544.pdf (last visited Feb 13, 2018).
65 Id.
66 Id. at 3.
67 Cf. Semiconductor Industry Association, Beyond Borders: The Global Semiconductor
Value Chain 7 (2016), available at
https://www.semiconductors.org/document_library_and_resources/trade/beyond_borders_t
he_global_semiconductor_value_chain/.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 TSMC Ready to Spend $20 Billion on its Most Advanced Chip Plant, Bloomberg.com,
October 6, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/tsmc-ready-tospend-20-billion-on-its-most-advanced-chip-plant (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
64

19

The market for GPUs has been dominated by Nvidia, a fabless
foundry. One industry analysis concluded that, as of the third quarter of
2017, Nvidia represented 72.8% of the market share for GPUs, with the rest
being controlled by AMD, another fabless foundry.72 Both are
headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
The market for FPGAs has also been dominated by a small set of
fabless foundries. In 2016, Xilinx led this segment with a market share of
53%.73 Altera, another FPGA specialist, was purchased by Intel in 2015 and
accounted for 36% of the market.74 These were distantly followed by
competitors Microsemi (7%) and Lattice Semiconductor (3%).75 This
roughly holds stable from the market share in 2015.76 All of these
companies are based in the United States. All but one, Lattice
Semiconductor, are headquartered in California.77
Estimating market share in the context of specialized machine
learning ASICs is more challenging. For one, the market is still emerging:
no major player in the space is currently engaging in mass production and
public sale of ASICs as a platform for machine learning. At the time of
writing, Google is only distributing their TPU ASIC to a relatively small
circle of researchers, and offers limited access to TPU computing cycles via
its cloud services.78 In any case, because these chips are highly customized
for particular purposes, it may be challenging to eventually define a single
“market” which usefully groups together the different types of devices that
might be fabricated as an ASIC for machine learning.
Harsh Chauhan, Nvidia Is Running Away With the GPU Market The Motley Fool
(2017), https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/06/nvidia-is-running-away-with-the-gpumarket.aspx (last visited Feb 20, 2018).
73 And the Winner of Best FPGA of 2016 is... | EE Times, EETimes,
https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1331443 (last visited Feb 20,
2018).
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 Xilinx, Corporate Locations, https://www.xilinx.com/about/contact/corporatelocations.html; Intel Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) Locations,
https://www.altera.com/about/contact/contact/altera-hq.html; Microsemi, Locations,
https://www.microsemi.com/locations; Lattice Semiconductor, Locations,
http://www.latticesemi.com/About.
78 Google is giving a cluster of 1,000 Cloud TPUs to researchers for free, TechCrunch
(2017), http://social.techcrunch.com/2017/05/17/the-tensorflow-research-cloud-programgives-the-latest-cloud-tpus-to-scientists/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Cloud TPUs - ML
accelerators for TensorFlow, Google Cloud, https://cloud.google.com/tpu/ (last visited Mar
21, 2018).
72

20

Since the major leaders in machine learning hardware are “fabless”,
they depend on a separate ecosystem of companies to provide the actual
fabrication of the chips they design. These companies, called “pure play
foundries” or simply “foundries”, are a highly consolidated marketplace. In
2016, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) accounted for 59% of the global
market for fabrication.79 Running significantly behind were
GlobalFoundries (11%), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) (9%),
and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) (6%).
80 TSMC and UMC are based in Taiwan, with SMIC in China and
GlobalFoundries in the US.81 While based in the US, GlobalFoundries is
owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi through its state-owned investment
arm Advanced Technology Investment Company (ATIC).82
There exists a network of somewhat stable relationships between this
handful of leading “fabless” foundries that are designing much of the
hardware that machine learning takes place on, and the small number of
companies that do their manufacturing. In the GPU space, Nvidia contracts
much of its high-performance GPU production to TSMC.83 In 2009,
GlobalFoundries was spun-off from AMD as part of a transition of the latter
towards a “fabless” model.84 As a result of this historical relationship, AMD
has traditionally worked closely with GlobalFoundries, though recently

Pure-Play Foundry Market Surges 11% in 2016 to Reach $50 Billion!, ,
http://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/PurePlay-Foundry-Market-Surges-11-In-2016To-Reach-50-Billion/ (last visited Feb 20, 2018).
80 Id.
81 TSMC, Business Contacts,
http://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/business_contacts.htm; UMC, Locations,
http://www.umc.com/english/contact/index.asp; SMIC, About Us,
http://www.smics.com/eng/about/about.php; GlobalFoundries, About Us,
https://www.globalfoundries.com/about-us.
82 Mark LaPedus, ATIC takes control of GlobalFoundries | EE Times, EETimes,
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1258215 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
83 See Nvidia: TSMC will remain a ‘very important’ foundry partner, KitGuru (2015),
https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-tsmc-will-remaina-very-important-foundry-partner/ (last visited Feb 20, 2018); Ashraf Eassa, NVIDIA
Corp.’s Relationship With Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Is Deepening The
Motley Fool (2017), https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/17/nvidia-corp-relationshiptaiwan-semiconductor.aspx (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
84 Benjamin Pimentel, GlobalFoundries created from AMD spin-off MarketWatch,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/globalfoundries-created-amd-spin-off-the (last visited
Mar 21, 2018).
79

21

announced that they will be splitting their new GPU production between
them and TSMC.85
FPGA production operates with a slightly different set of connections
between chip designers and associated foundries. Xilinx has worked in the
past with UMC though increasingly partners with TSMC on its more recent
hardware.86 Altera was acquired by Intel in 2015 and relies in part on its
corporate parent for fabrication services.87 Microsemi announced in 2013
that it too would work with Intel for its fabrication needs.88 Lattice
Semiconductor works with both UMC and TSMC, along with some smaller
foundries.89
The geographic distribution of these players is mirrored in the overall
structure of the industry. US firms account for the largest share of the global
market, accounting for 50% of semiconductor sales in 2016.90 However, the
actual fabrication of semiconductor devices largely takes place outside of
the United States. In 2015, about three-quarters of the world’s advanced
semiconductor fabrication capacity was located in South Korea, Taiwan,
Japan, and China.91 This continues a historical trend of production capacity
moving from the US to the Asia-Pacific region. In 1980 the US accounted
for 42% of global manufacturing capacity, a number which dropped
consistently over subsequent years to 16% by 2007.92
US National Security and the Semiconductor Industry

See AMD are splitting 7nm Zen 2 CPU and Vega GPU manufacturing between TSMC
and GloFo | PCGamesN, , https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-7nm-tsmc-globalfoundries
(last visited Feb 20, 2018).
86 Dylan McGrath, Xilinx confirms: Samsung, TSMC in, UMC out at 28-nm | EE Times,
EETimes, https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1173112 (last visited Mar 21,
2018).
87 Can Intel Dethrone The Foundry Giants?, Semiconductor Engineering,
https://semiengineering.com/intel-dethrone-foundry-giants/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
88 Microsemi, Microsemi Selects Intel Corporation Foundry Services for the Development
of Digital Integrated Circuits, https://investor.microsemi.com/2013-05-01-MicrosemiSelects-Intel-Corporation-Foundry-Services-for-the-Development-of-Digital-IntegratedCircuits (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
89 Lattice Semiconductor, ISO 9001/ TS 16949/ ISO 14001 Certificates,
http://www.latticesemi.com/en/Support/QualityAndReliability/ManufacturingPartners/ISO
Certificates (last visited Mar 20, 2018).
90 See supra note 61 at 2.
91 Id. at 9.
92 Id. at 9-10.
85

22

Given the importance of semiconductors to the supply chain of
consumer and military electronics, the industry has “[f]or decades” been
considered relevant to national security within the US.93 Concerns about the
shift of semiconductor manufacturing capacity to the Asia-Pacific region
have also dominated this discussion for decades, beginning with the rise of
the Japanese semiconductor industry in the 1970s.94 Worries about this
transition has resulted in a range of different regulatory interventions in past
decades to bolster and secure the US semiconductor industry, and block
foreign access to the most cutting edge computational power.
Export controls in high-performance computing have been one
important way these concerns have manifested as policy. Under Executive
Order 13222, the US Commerce Department regulates exports of high
performance computers (HPC) to certain countries, which are grouped into
tiers.95 Computers exceeding certain thresholds of processor performance to
particular countries and end-users require prior government review for
export.96 These exports may be blocked on national security and antiterrorism grounds.97
Fears around reliance on foreign manufacturing have also resulted in
more extensive coordination between government and corporate actors. In
2004, the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Security
Agency (NSA) initiated a “Trusted Foundry Program”, which arranged for
long-term contracts with accredited US companies to ensure that the
government would have guaranteed access to trusted chips for its needs.98
In practice, this program would center on a sole-source contract with IBM,
which was deemed “the only U.S.-based company able to meet DOD and
intelligence community needs for trusted leading-edge microelectronics.”99
While the program eventually expanded to include other trusted suppliers,
one 2015 analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
observed that IBM remained the only supplier with cutting-edge fabrication
Supra note 61 at 21.
Id. at 18-19. For a contemporaneous review, see Warren E. Davis & Daryl G. Hatano,
The American Semiconductor Industry and the Ascendancy of East Asia, 27 California
Management Review 128 (1985).
95 Exec. Order No. 13,222, 66 Fed. Reg. 44025 (Aug 22, 2001); Bureau of Industry and
Security, US Department of Commerce, Legal Authority for the Export Administration
Regulations,
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/Export%20Administration%20Regulations
%20Training/876-legal-authority-for-the-export-administration-regulations/file.
96 15 CFR § 774, Supplement No. 1.
97 Id.
98 Supra note 61 at 22.
99 Id.
93
94

23

facilities and that “use of accredited suppliers other than IBM has been
minimal” as a result.100
This program is at present in transition. In 2014, IBM announced that
it would transfer ownership of its foundries to the foreign owned
GlobalFoundries.101 This sale followed significant losses for IBM on its
foundry business. During 2013 and 2014 the company lost $700 million on
its two primary chip fabrication facilities, and in the end IBM paid $1.5
billion to GlobalFoundries for the acquisition.102 This transfer was approved
and included a multi-year contract with the DOD to provide semiconductors
to the US government until 2023.103 However, the 2015 GAO analysis
concluded simply that “there are no near-term alternatives to the foundry
services formerly provided by IBM.”104 As of late 2018, efforts are ongoing
to identify “new approaches to retain trustable, leading-edge capabilities”.
105

Broader coordination has also happened in the past. During the 1980s
and 1990s, concern around rising Japanese dominance in the space
motivated the launch of SEMATECH, a public-private research consortium
of US semiconductor firms.106 Over subsequent years, $870 million in
public subsidies from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and augmented by matching funds from the participating
companies focused on accelerating research into semiconductor
manufacturing.107 In 1996, after a period of growing US market share in
semiconductors, the directors of SEMATECH voted to stop receiving
federal funding.108
Many factors enabled the resurgence of the US semiconductor
industry in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the ultimate impact of
Marie A. Mak, Trusted Defense Microelectronics: Future Access and Capabilities Are
Uncertain, Congressional Research Service 4 (2015), available at
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-185T.
101 Supra note 61 at 22.
102 IBM-GlobalFoundries Deal Finalized | EE Times, EETimes,
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1327029 (last visited Mar 18, 2018).
103 Doug Cameron, Pentagon Hires Foreign Chips Supplier, Wall Street Journal, June 5,
2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-takes-foreign-chips-partner-1465159332.
104 See supra note 95 at 4.
105 Id.
106 See Larry D. Browning & Judy C. Shetler, Sematech: Saving the U.S. Semiconductor
Industry (2000).
107 See supra note 22 at 19.
108 Id. at 20.
100

24

SEMATECH has been disputed.109 However, consensus favors the positive
role the consortium played. One 2003 review by the National Academies
concluded that the public-private effort was “key among elements in the
industry’s revival—contributing respectively to the restoration of financial
health and product quality.”110
Recent US Focus in the Space: China
Concerns around the robustness of the US semiconductor industry
have persisted into the present as China has made a concerted push to
advance its own semiconductor industry in recent years. In 2014, the State
Council of China published National Guidelines for Development and
Promotion of the Integrated Circuit (IC) Industry, a strategic plan which
aims to establish national leadership across the semiconductor supply chain
by 2030.111 The plan allocates $100 to $150 billion from public and private
investment to support this effort.112 Goals declared later in 2015 would
imply ambitions that “roughly all incremental foundry capacity installed
globally over the next ten years would have to be in China.113
One result of this strategy has been a rapid expansion in acquisition
activity by Chinese investment and technology companies. Some larger
transactions in the space include a $2.3 billion acquisition of H3C, a Hong
Kong subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard114, a $2.75 billion acquisition of NXP
Semiconductor’s “Standard Products” division, and a $1.8 billion
acquisition of Omnvision, which specializes in semiconductors for imaging
applications.115 One analysis in late 2017 estimated that “the total volume of
transactions of China’s semiconductor overseas M&As (completed) so far
has exceeded US$11 billion.”116 It has also been reflected in a significant
increase in the construction of new chip fabrication plants in the country.

Id.
National Academies, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New
Technologies 90 (2002), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10584 (last visited Feb
15, 2018).
111 Christopher Thomas, A new world under construction: China and semiconductors,
McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/asia-pacific/a-newworld-under-construction-china-and-semiconductors (last visited Mar 18, 2018).
112 Id.
113 Id.
114 C. P. Yue & T. Lu, China’s Latest Overseas M&A in the Semiconductor Industry, 9
IEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine 8–12 (2017).
115 Id.
116 Id.
109
110

25

Roughly 40% of front-end semiconductor fabs slated to begin operation in
2017 to 2020 worldwide are located in China.117
This effort has also included the recruitment of several high-profile
leaders within the Taiwanese semiconductor industry. This includes the
recent move in 2017 by Shih-wei Sun, former CEO of Taiwan’s UMC
foundry, to China’s Tsinghua Unigroup.118 Similarly, Shang-Yi Chiang and
Liang Mong-song, both research leaders at Taiwan’s TSMC, were recruited
to China’s SMIC that same year.119 These moves have produced some
alarm within the Taiwanese semiconductor industry. TSMC chairperson
Morris Chang has voiced concerns that the industry may become a “one
way road” where “talent only departs and never arrives.”120
These efforts are directed towards catching up: China has not
traditionally been a leader in the semiconductor sector. While it accounts for
a large percentage of worldwide consumption (57% in 2014), it largely
relies on imports to meet this demand.121 As of 2015, China possessed only
around 6% of the most advanced semiconductor fabs globally.122 One report
noted that many fabrication plans continued to use “older technology and
used equipment”, which reflected China’s focus on products that “do not
require leading-edge semiconductors.”123 These recent efforts also follow
on earlier, less successful initiatives by the Chinese government to
accelerate the development of their national semiconductor base.124
However, the present effort differs in its focus on fostering a defined set of
Dylan McGrath, China to house over 40% of semi fabs by 2020, EE Times Asia,
https://www.eetasia.com/news/article/china-to-house-over-40-of-semi-fabs-by-2020 (last
visited Mar 19, 2018).
118 Cheng Ting-Fang, China poaches more Taiwanese chip talent, Nikkei Asian Review,
https://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20171109/Business/China-poaches-more-Taiwanesechip-talent (last visited Feb 20, 2018); Alan Patterson, China Expected to Poach More
Taiwan Chip Execs, EETimes, https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331144
(last visited Feb 20, 2018).
119 Id.
120 The China Post, TSMC boss slams government over China brain drain The China Post
(2017), https://chinapost.nownews.com/20170125-11485 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
121 See supra note 61 at 14.
122 Id. at 15.
123 Dieter Ernst, From Catching Up to Forging Ahead: China’s Policies for
Semiconductors, East-West Institute (2015), https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2744974 (last
visited Mar 19, 2018).
124 Gordon Orr & Christopher Thomas, Semiconductors in China: Brave new world or
same old story?, McKinsey & Company,
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/semiconductors/our-insights/semiconductors-inchina-brave-new-world-or-same-old-story (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
117

26

national “champions” to compete internationally, rather than spreading
financial support more thinly throughout the economy.125
The US has been active in attempting to counter these efforts. In
2016, then Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker declared that the US
would “not allow any nation to dominate this [the semiconductor] industry
and impede innovation through unfair trade practices and massive, nonmarket-based state intervention.”126 An expert committee convened by the
NSA and the Department of Energy (DOE) that same year agreed,
“expressing significant concern that – absent aggressive action by the U.S. –
the U.S. will lose leadership and not control its own future in HPC [highperformance computing].”127
Several steps were taken towards this end. President Obama
authorized the National Strategic Computing Initiative in 2015, which
directed the DOD, DOE, and the National Science Foundation to work to
“preserve [the US] leadership role in creating HPC technology”.128 In 2015,
the administration restricted the sales of advanced microprocessors to
several research sites associated with the Chinese supercomputer Tianhe-2.
129 The administration also blocked the acquisition of the US based assets of
Aixtron, a German semiconductor manufacturer, by China’s Fujian Grand
Chip Investment Fund.130 Similar deals were canceled on the threat of

Chips on their shoulders, The Economist, Jan 23, 2016,
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21688871-china-wants-become-superpowersemiconductors-and-plans-spend-colossal-sums (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
126 U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Delivers Major Policy Address on
Semiconductors at Center for Strategic and International Studies, Department of
Commerce (2016), https://www.commerce.gov/news/secretary-speeches/2016/11/ussecretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-delivers-major-policy-address (last visited Feb 20,
2018).
127 U.S. Leadership in High Performance Computing (HPC), NSA-DOE Technical Meeting
on High Performance Computing,
https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/images/b/b4/NSA_DOE_HPC_TechMeetingReport.pdf
(last visited Feb 13, 2018).
128 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Fact Sheet: National Strategic Computing
Initiative (2015),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nsci_fact_sheet.pd
f.
129 Don Clark, U.S. Agencies Block Technology Exports for Supercomputer in China, Wall
Street Journal, April 9, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-agencies-block-technologyexports-for-supercomputer-in-china-1428561987 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
130 Paul Mozur, Obama Moves to Block Chinese Acquisition of a German Chip Maker, The
New York Times, December 2, 2016,
125

27

rejection by the Obama administration through the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group “authorized
to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a
foreign person…in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the
national security of the United States.”131 This included the sinking of a
2015 offer by China Resources Microelectronics and Hua Capital
Management to acquire US-based Fairchild Semiconductor.132
The Trump administration has maintained the active stance of the
Obama administration in limiting foreign acquisition of US semiconductor
companies. In 2017, CFIUS blocked a proposed acquisition of Lattice
Semiconductor, a leading FPGA producer, by China Venture Capital Fund
Corporation (CVCF), a state-run investment arm.133 The decision cited
“credible evidence that the foreign interest exercising control might take
action that threatens to impair national security” and the “importance of
semiconductor supply chain integrity to the U.S. government, and the use of
Lattice products by the U.S. government.”134 In 2018, using the same
authority and citing similar concerns, the Trump administration blocked a
proposed $117 billion acquisition of Qualcomm by Singapore-based
competitor Broadcom.135 The administration similarly blocked a $580
million offer to acquire Xcerra, a Massachusetts-based semiconductor
company, by state-backed investment funds Sino IC Capital and Hubei
Xinyan that same year.136 In late 2017, a bipartisan group proposed the

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/business/dealbook/china-aixtron-obama-cfius.html
(last visited Mar 18, 2018).
131 US Department of the Treasury, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/Pages/Committee-onForeign-Investment-in-US.aspx (last accessed Mar 22, 2018).
132 Diane Bartz and Liana B. Baker, Fairchild rejects Chinese offer on U.S. regulatory
fears, Reuters, February 16, 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fairchild-semico-ma/fairchild-says-china-resources-offer-not-superior-to-on-semis-idUSKCN0VP1O8 (last
visited Mar 21, 2018).3
133 Timothy B. Lee, Trump blocks Chinese purchase of US chipmaker over national
security Ars Technica (2017), https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/trump-blockschinese-purchase-of-us-chipmaker-over-national-security/ (last visited Feb 13, 2018).
134 Statement On The President’s Decision Regarding Lattice Semiconductor Corporation,
Department of the Treasury, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/pressreleases/Pages/sm0157.aspx (last visited Feb 13, 2018).
135 Kate O’Keeffe, Trump Orders Broadcom to Cease Attempt to Buy Qualcomm, Wall
Street Journal, March 13, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-letter-cfius-suggests-itmay-soon-recommend-against-broadcom-bid-for-qualcomm-1520869867 (last visited Mar
21, 2018).
136 Raymond Zhong, U.S. Blocks a Chinese Deal Amid Rising Tensions Over Technology,
The New York Times, February 23, 2018,

28

Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA).137 The bill
would expand CFIUS review to include a range of transactions beyond
outright acquisition, and would raise review in situations where an
emerging technology prospectively “could be essential to national security.”
138

Impact: Computational Power and the Geopolitics of Machine Learning
From a geopolitical standpoint, the semiconductor industry finds itself
in the middle of a perfect storm. First, semiconductor manufacturing
capacity is considered a vital strategic asset, and the issue of who owns
these businesses and their intellectual property is considered a national
security matter. Second, the evolution of the industry has produced a
bifurcated geography, with design-focused “fabless” foundries largely
based in the US but with actual production taking place in the Asia-Pacific
region. The result is that the semiconductor industry, like others, has been
increasingly drawn into international politics as tensions escalate between
the US and China.
This broader backdrop suggests that the more specific technology of
machine learning is likely to be a flashpoint in the larger context of
semiconductor competition between the US and China. In July 2017, the
Chinese State Council released its “New Generation AI Development Plan”,
which sets out targets for development in AI and related industries. The
plan declares AI to be “a new focus of international competition” and “a
strategic technology that will lead in the future”.139 It plans for China to
“firmly seize the strategic initiative in the new stage of international
competition in AI development” and “effectively [protect] national
security.”140 Specifically, the plan aims for China to be the world’s
“primary” leader in the technology and for the technology to be a $150
billion industry in the country by 2030.141 As in the semiconductor context,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/technology/china-microchips-cfius-xcerra.html (last
visited Mar 21, 2018).
137 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, S. 2098, 115th Cong.
(2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2098.
138 Id.
139 State Council of China, A Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan 2
(2017), available at https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/blog/chinas-planlead-ai-purpose-prospects-and-problems/.
140 Id.
141 Id. at 6-7.

29

this plan echoes and builds on a series of earlier published policies focusing
on robotics and other emerging technologies.142
There are a number of components to the State Council strategy. For
one, the Chinese government intends to ramp up spending to support the
development of AI in the country. Its Artificial Intelligence 2.0 program is
poised to deploy “billions to develop AI for commercial and military use.”
143 This will also be supported by a system of “government guidance funds”
that provide financial support to companies and new ventures working on
AI and related technologies.144 The plan also contemplates recruiting and
accelerating the training of leading AI researchers in the fields of “neural
awareness, machine learning, automatic driving, intelligent robots, and
other areas.”145
Advancing computational power appears as a consistent theme in
these plans. The State Council plan highlights the lack of “high-end chips”
as a factor in China lagging in the field of AI.146 The Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology (MIIT), in elaborating on the State Council
Plan, has explicitly laid out the “[development of] high-performance,
scalable, and low-power cloud neural network chips for machine learning
training applications” as a key priority.147 It also distinguishes between the
cloud and the separate need to advance chips to support “terminal”
embedded applications, where “low-power, high-performance neural
network chips suitable for machine learning algorithms” are needed.148 By
2020, MIIT targets chips which will have “performance levels of 128
TFLOPS (16-bit floating point), and the energy efficiency ratio of more
See, e.g., Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, The 13th Five-Year Plan
for the Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China 67 (2016),
available at http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201612/P020161207645765233498.pdf
(highlighting AI as a target “strategic emerging industry” for development); State Council
of China, Guiding Opinions on Actively Promoting the "Internet Plus" Initiative (2015),
available at http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-07/04/content_10002.htm
(highlighting the development of AI as a priority).
143 Tom Simonite, The Trump Administration Can’t Stop China From Becoming an AI
Superpower, WIRED, Jun 29, 2018, https://www.wired.com/story/america-china-aiascension/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
144 Yuan Yang, China fuels boom in domestic tech start-ups Financial Times (2017),
https://www.ft.com/content/b63ee746-afc6-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130 (last visited Mar 21,
2018) (describing the government guidance funds ecosystem).
145 See supra note 133 at 14.
146 Id. at 4.
147 Translation: Chinese government outlines AI ambitions through 2020, New America,
https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/blog/chinas-plan-lead-ai-purposeprospects-and-problems/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
148 Id.
142

30

than 1 TFLOPS/Watt” with “terminal” chips having a similar efficiency.149
Consistent with these policies, in August 2017 China’s State Development
& Investment Corporation led a $100 million round of funding in
Cambricon, a startup focusing on the development of specialized machine
learning hardware150.
National policies depend critically on what can be practically
controlled by a state.151 In a competitive environment, nations seek to
control levers to shape the prospects of their adversaries, or at least the
means of denying them access to key opportunities. Norms of open
publication in research, the existence of widely distributed open-source
toolkits, and the ever widening circle of those familiar with the practice of
machine learning suggest that efforts to control research, software, or
specialists in general will be challenging over time.152 Computational
power, with its small number of actors and large, fixed production facilities,
is likely to be a focal point for national competition in the space.
International rivalry around the technology of machine learning will
therefore in large part manifest itself in practice as international rivalry over
the supply chain of computational power.
This is particularly true in the US-China context, where US
companies depend on the manufacturing capability of a Chinese neighbor Taiwan - and China desires access to more advanced computing power to
support machine learning applications. Through market leaders Nvidia and
Xilinx, Taiwanese foundries TSMC and UMC play a critical role in the
manufacture of high-end GPUs and the FPGAs likely to support machine
learning applications going forwards.
As CFIUS seems poised to make it increasingly challenging for China
to pursue acquisitions of US semiconductor companies, shaping Taiwanese
trade and foreign investment policies in semiconductors will assume greater

Id.
Tom Simonite, China Challenges Nvidia’s Hold on Artificial Intelligence Chips |
WIRED, https://www.wired.com/story/china-challenges-nvidias-hold-on-artificialintelligence-chips/ (last visited Mar 19, 2018).
151 Cf. James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed (New Ed edition ed. 1999).
152 See, e.g., arXiv, https://arxiv.org/ (open publication); Tensorflow,
https://www.tensorflow.org/ (toolkit); Pytorch, http://pytorch.org/ (toolkit); Fast.ai,
http://www.fast.ai/ (training); Deeplearning.ai, https://www.deeplearning.ai/ (training).
149
150

31

importance.153 The extent to which the US is able to successfully deny
China access to advanced computing power, and the extent to which China
is able to develop it domestically or acquire it otherwise, remains to be seen.
The outcome will play a major role in determining the availability and
sophistication of machine learning systems in different markets and among
companies globally.
These trends may be further exacerbated as the machine learning field
itself continues to evolve. In particular, there exist a rapidly developing set
of research areas within machine learning - simulation learning, self-play,
and meta-learning - which seem poised to heighten the importance of
computational power as the key element in advancing the effectiveness of
machine learning models. Moreover, meta-learning, which seeks to
automate the architecture of machine learning algorithms, may also enable
computational power to substitute somewhat for a lack of ready research
and engineering specialists in the space.
PART IV: COMPUTATIONAL POWER AS DATA SUBSTITUTE
Computational power is just one ingredient in the process of training
effective machine learning systems. Machine learning also requires
sufficient and appropriate data, the examples on which the system will learn
a good representation of the task it is attempting to accomplish.
The cost and availability of these inputs is crucial in thinking about
the distributional impact of machine learning. Depending on the resources
available to the practitioner and the presence of pre-existing data, acquiring
both of these critical inputs may be more or less feasible for solving a
particular problem. This influences both the set of actors that can generate
novel machine learning systems, as well as the set of domains that machine
learning can be effectively used in.
While computational power is increasingly commoditized and
available as a service, acquiring and cleaning data appropriate to training a
system to solve a given task remains stubbornly costly and time-consuming
in a number of domains. Insofar as commercial actors continue to be the
153 See supra note 113, Patterson (Quoting one industry analyst that “China will find it very
tough to buy U.S. high-tech companies and difficult to leverage Chinese joint ventures or
wholly-owned enterprises to access key U.S. intellectual property…We thus expect more
senior Taiwan veterans to join China’s semiconductor industry as a second wave of talent
moves to China.”)

32

primary investors in the development of machine learning, this may render
a set of potential machine learning applications infeasible or unprofitable to
invest in developing.
However, one significant recent trend on this front has been a set of
research successes which - in certain domains - are reducing a dependence
on acquiring real-world data and increasing the role of computational power
in the training of machine learning systems. This is significant since in these
situations leveraging machine learning will be limited by the cost and
availability of computing power, rather than the more fixed costs of
gathering data in a specific domain. There are three arenas of research
which seem particularly promising in this respect: simulation learning, selfplay, and meta-learning.
Simulation Learning
Simulation learning seeks to replace the need for collecting real-world
data by training an agent in a virtual space. For example, rather than
training a robot arm to grasp objects by having a real robot arm attempting
to pick up many different types of objects in the physical world, this
approach trains the machine by having it “experience” picking up virtual
objects in a computer simulation.154 Once the system learns a good
representation of the task, it can then be implemented to control a robot arm
in the real world.155 Successes in using this approach have prompted a
number of different simulation environments for training agents to be
released in recent years.156
The continuing advancement of simulation learning changes the
balance of data and computational power. From a practical perspective,
Compare Xue Bin Peng et al, Generalizing from Simulation, OpenAI Blog (2017),
https://blog.openai.com/generalizing-from-simulation/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018) with
Sergey Levine, Deep Learning for Robots: Learning from Large-Scale Interaction, Google
Research Blog, https://research.googleblog.com/2016/03/deep-learning-for-robotslearning-from.html (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
155 See, e.g., Xue Bin Peng et al., Sim-to-Real Transfer of Robotic Control with Dynamics
Randomization, (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06537 (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Josh
Tobin et al., Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep Neural Networks from
Simulation to the Real World, arXiv:1703.06907 [cs] (2017),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06907 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
156 See Microsoft shares open source system for training drones, other gadgets to move
safely on their own, Microsoft AI Blog (2017), https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/microsoftshares-open-source-system-training-drones-gadgets-move-safely/ (last visited Mar 21,
2018); DeepMind, DeepMind Lab, https://deepmind.com/research/publications/deepmindlab/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
154

33

effective simulation learning removes the costs and logistical challenges of
collecting data through sensors in the real world. In effect, it substitutes
computational power for data as an input in machine learning. This is
particularly promising since simulation learning might enable the collection
of data far beyond what would be practical in the real world. Taking the
example discussed above, a simulated approach may be able to run many
more trials with virtual arms and virtual objects than the constraints of
warehousing, maintenance, and energy in a real-world setting would allow.
This at least theoretically holds out the promise of creating more effective
machine learning systems which are trained on a more substantial simulated
dataset at a faster rate.
These gains may be limited to particular types of domains. One
obvious limitation of this approach is that it will only be effective in
situations in which the simulation acts as a sufficiently realistic proxy for
the actual challenge. A simulation which has unrealistic assumptions will
cause the agent to learn a poor representation that fails when it is finally
deployed “in the field.”157 Simulating a robot operating in the physical
world, for instance, may be relatively more straightforward than simulating
group social behavior or ecological systems where underlying forces are not
well understood.
Self-Play
Simulation learning avoids the need for collecting real-world data by
substituting a virtual environment for an agent to interact with. Self-play
avoids the need for real-world data by having an agent play itself in order to
improve and acquire “experience” in a given task. It therefore represents
another method which effectively substitutes computational power for data
as an input in the machine learning process.
At the time of writing, one notable demonstration of the use of selfplay as a technique for reducing a dependence on data has been AlphaZero,
a system designed by Google’s DeepMind research lab which was able to
achieve champion level skill at the board games of Go, chess, and shogi
without the use of any pre-existing data of human games.158 This marks a
departure from earlier versions of these systems, which required training on
data around historical examples of Go games to achieve a certain level of
See supra note 148 at 1.
David Silver et al., Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General
Reinforcement Learning Algorithm, arXiv:1712.01815 [cs] (2017),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01815 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
157
158

34

proficiency.159 These self-play methods have also enabled advancements in
transfer learning, allowing agents which learn skills in one environment to
apply it in a new, novel one.160
Like simulation learning, self-play is also somewhat domain limited
to situations in which the competitive action of two agents will generate the
data necessary to train the system to solve the desired problem. But, in these
contexts, computational power becomes a primary rate limiter of progress,
rather than the availability of data. As in the simulation learning case,
sufficient computational power enables a multitude of agents to rapidly play
a number of games which potentially outstrips the data that is available
from games played by humans.
Meta-Learning
Learning architectures - the system by which a machine learning
system extracts features and acquires a good representation of the task it is
intended to solve - are another key ingredient in the machine learning
workflow. For the purposes of this discussion, these architectures are
notable since they influence the efficiency of the training process, defining
how successful a trained machine learning system will be at a task for a
given amount of training examples given to it.
These learning architectures have traditionally been hand-crafted by
researchers and engineers developing these systems. Meta-learning seeks to
automate this work by treating the task of designing these architectures as
itself a machine learning task.161 This approach has seen a number of
promising successes, with machine generated learning architectures
outpacing the benchmarked performance of their human crafted
counterparts at the same task.162 Meta-learning has also been used to

Id.
See, e.g., Trapit Bansal et al., Emergent Complexity via Multi-Agent Competition,
arXiv:1710.03748 [cs] (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03748 (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
161 See, e.g.,Marcin Andrychowicz et al., Learning to learn by gradient descent by gradient
descent, arXiv:1606.04474 [cs] (2016), http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04474 (last visited Mar
21, 2018).
162 See, e.g., Esteban Real et al., Regularized Evolution for Image Classifier Architecture
Search, arXiv:1802.01548 [cs] (2018), http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01548 (last visited Mar 21,
2018).
159
160

35

optimize the distributions of neural networks across CPUs and GPUs and
improve training and inference performance.163
Advancements in these techniques again have implications for the role
of computational power in the workflow of machine learning. For one,
meta-learning might improve the performance of machine learning systems
with a given dataset, or enable equivalent performance with less data.
Secondly, the automation of learning architecture design may also increase
the speed at which new machine learning systems can be designed by aiding
human technicians in creating the appropriate architecture for a given task.
Meta-learning does not offer a direct substitute to real-world data in
the same way that simulation learning and self-play seem to. But, metalearning is parallel to these methods insofar as it potentially reduces the
amount of data needed to train a system to successfully accomplish a task.
Meta-learning also accentuates the need for computational power, as a
training process is required for generating an effective learning architecture
as well as in learning how to accomplish the task itself.
Impact: Computational Power and Economic Impact
These shifts in the research field have broader significance because of
the role that the inputs of machine learning play in defining its economic
impact. Machine learning must be cost-effective and equivalently proficient
at accomplishing a given task before it can serve as a competitive substitute
for a human executing the same task. However, achieving this level of
proficiency requires a machine learning model to be trained - a process that
typically requires both sufficient computational power and sufficient data.
The availability of data and the cost of acquiring will vary depending
on the domain. Existing market forces may already make this data freely
available and structured for use. However, there are numerous reasons why
this may not be the case. Legal restrictions rooted in copyright or privacy
may make it expensive or challenging to acquire data.164 The specific
domain may itself make the practical tasks around acquiring the right data
difficult. This is important because the poor availability of data can make it
Azalia Mirhoseini et al., Device Placement Optimization with Reinforcement Learning,
arXiv:1706.04972 [cs] (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04972 (last visited Feb 13, 2018).
164 See, e.g., Amanda Levendowski, How Copyright Law Can Fix Artificial Intelligence’s
Implicit Bias Problem (2017), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3024938 (last visited Mar
21, 2018).
163

36

challenging for machine learning to produce a system which is an effective
automated substitute for a given task. In the very least, these barriers may
make the application of machine learning economically unviable for certain
tasks and domains.
The advancements in machine learning research discussed above are
significant because they reduce the dependence on data collection as a
necessary component for training a machine learning system effectively.
Simulation learning and self-play substitute computational power for data,
enabling a system to learn a skill effectively without the physical costs and
logistical requirements of real world collection. Meta-learning potentially
boosts the efficiency of models by adding more computational power.
These shifts have two economic impacts, one on the issue of technological
unemployment, and the other on the issue of the industrial organization of
machine learning.
Technological Unemployment
The economic literature examining the issue of technological
unemployment in the context of machine learning has often abstracted away
from the influence that inputs of data and compute have on the success of
machine learning systems.165 One method is to rely on surveys of expert
opinion about the likelihood that a given task is broadly subject to
automation by machines.166 Common sources for these skills include the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and its successor O*NET databases compiled by the US Department of Labor.167 These skills are
usually articulated in a broad way, such as “[t]he ability to see objects in the
presence of glare or bright lighting” or “[t]he ability to communicate
information and ideas in speaking so others will understand.”168
See, e.g., Anton Korinek and Joseph E Stiglitz, Artificial Intelligence, WorkerReplacing Technological Change and Income Distribution, NBER Economics of Artificial
Intelligence 2017, http://www.nber.org/conf_papers/f100963/f100963.pdf; David Autor &
Anna Salomons, Robocalypse Now–Does Productivity Growth Threaten Employment?,
NBER Economics of Artificial Intelligence 2017,
http://papers.nber.org/conf_papers/f100969/f100969.pdf.
166 See, e.g., Carl Benedikt Frey & Michael A. Osborne, The future of employment: How
susceptible are jobs to computerisation?, 114 Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 254–280 (2017).
167 Dictionary of Occupational Titles, https://occupationalinfo.org/; O*Net Online,
https://www.onetonline.org/.
168 O*Net, Sensory Abilities,
https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/Abilities/1.A.4/; O*Net, Cognitive
Abilities, https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/Abilities/1.A.1/.
165

37

However, examining whether or not machine learning would enable
the automation of “the handling of irregular objects” in such an abstract
way may fail to take into account the costs and practicality of assembling
the data necessary to train a system to an adequate level of proficiency in a
domain. It may also mask challenges in training a system to be sufficiently
robust to accomplish this task across a broad set of sectors and contexts.
The data needed to train a machine learning model to grasp an irregular
object in a well-lit, controlled environment may differ considerably from
the training data needed to teach it to do so underwater, or in the dark.
Examining the availability and cost of these data inputs therefore becomes
critical since it can determine the practical terms under which a human skill
is subject to automation.
The influence of data availability on machine learning performance
suggests that the impact of machine learning on labor automation will
proceed in a fragmentary, domain specific way. The data-replacing (or dataminimizing) techniques discussed above seem poised to accentuate this
differential development. Though impressive, simulation learning and selfplay are not all-purpose; they are most appropriate as learning schemes in
specific circumstances. Self-play is specific to a reinforcement learning
context with competing agents, and simulation learning is most effective in
situations where it is feasible to construct a virtual space analogous to the
real-world problem being solved. However, within these applicable
domains, the barrier to machine learning being applied to a situation may be
fixed by the cost of computing power, rather than the unpredictable costs
and occasionally absolute barriers to collecting data on a particular task.
That may accelerate displacement in those domains.
There are a scattered constellation of applicable domains suggested by
these two techniques. Applications in robotics - in which an agent needs to
accomplish a physical task in the real world, may be particularly benefitted
by the acceleration made possible by simulation learning.169 Competitive
marketplaces, from capital markets to programmatic advertising, may be
places where techniques such as self-play work to significantly improve
machine learning system performance. Military autonomy may also be
similarly impacted as self-play and simulation learning together allow the
training of drones and other robotics in a manner it would otherwise be

See, e.g., Cade Metz, A.I. Researchers Leave Elon Musk Lab to Begin Robotics StartUp, The New York Times, November 6, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/technology/artificial-intelligence-start-up.html (last
visited Mar 22, 2018).
169

38

prohibitively expensive to do in the real-world. Within these types of
contexts, machine learning may begin to have a disproportionate impact.
Meta-learning impacts the relationship between machine learning,
automation, and labor in a related, but more general way. Meta-learning
may produce an overall improvement in the ability for systems to be trained
to an adequate level of proficiency on a task with less data. This may make
certain applications at the margin more viable than they would otherwise
be, particularly in situations where data is scarce. These techniques may
also lower the costs to creating new machine learning systems where
engineering and development costs would have previously made investment
in developing a capability unprofitable. Certain domains may have plentiful
data, but the costs of developing and tuning an appropriate learning
architecture and the potential profit of offering a product in that domain
may render the choice to actually invest in developing the product
unattractive. By aiding human domain experts in architecting these systems,
meta-learning impacts the engineering time and cost of developing new
systems and in doing so broadens the set of arenas that machine learning
will be deployed in.
It is important to recognize that the processes by which labor is
automated are complex, and not purely economic and technical. The ability
for machine learning to proficiently accomplish a task is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for that task to be actually automated in practice.
Business practices can take a long time to respond to technological
change.170 Work is a sociotechnical system - and many forces shape who is
employed and how work is accomplished. Automation may depend less on
the economic opportunities presented by the technology, and more on a
complex fabric of local historical and cultural factors171. Nevertheless, these
techniques may open opportunities to automate where it was previously
technically infeasible or cost-prohibitive to do so.
James Manyika et al, A Future That Works: Automation, Employment, and
Productivity, McKinsey Global Institute 70 (2017), available at
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/2017-in-review/automation-and-the-future-ofwork/a-future-that-works-automation-employment-and-productivity (concluding that
“automation will be a global force, but adoption will take decades and there is significant
uncertainty on timing”).
171 See, e.g., Alex Rosenblat and Tim Hwang, Regional Diversity in Autonomy and Work:
A Case Study from Uber and Lyft Drivers (2016), available at
https://datasociety.net/pubs/ia/Rosenblat-Hwang_Regional_Diversity-10-13.pdf
(highlighting regional variation in machine learning driven workplaces); Marc Levinson,
The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy
Bigger, Chapters 5-6 (2008) (discussing local political circumstances shaping industrial
outcomes in shipping automation).
170

39

Industrial Organization
We can look at the economic impact of these research developments
in two ways. Simulation learning, self-play, and meta-learning enable
computational power to play a bigger role not just in defining the impact of
machine learning on labor generally, but also in the competitive landscape
between various firms seeking to offer products and services driven by AI,
as well. To this end, computational power will play a role in shaping the
industrial organization of machine learning: the types of competition, its
level of consolidation, and the opportunities for new entrants.
Two “ingredients” serve as barriers to entry in machine learning: the
data necessary to train the systems, and the relatively small pool of qualified
talent necessary to build effective learning architectures.172 Possessors of
these assets have been able to generate some of the most impressive and
groundbreaking machine learning systems, while competitors lacking these
assets have been unable to compete on similar footing.173
These data-substituting and data-minimizing techniques are important
because they shift the competitive balances between companies looking to
lead in the latest generation of AI. For one, the advantages of data
incumbency may be significantly eroded in certain markets. Expansive
historical datasets on farm machinery to train agricultural robots, for
instance, may be offset by sufficient computational power to simply
simulate this farm machinery in a virtual space. As the research continues to
develop, these may represent two viable paths towards developing and
offering effective machine learning products in the space.
The benefits of these research developments might then redound to
the handful of large technology companies that have been already investing
most aggressively in the latest generation of machine learning such as
Google and Facebook. These are companies which already possess
significant endowments of computational power. On that count, the
improvement of simulation learning or self-play may enable these existing
technology leaders to enter new industries and provide products to meet use
172 See, e.g., Cade Metz, Tech Giants Are Paying Huge Salaries for Scarce A.I. Talent, The
New York Times, October 22, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/22/technology/artificial-intelligence-expertssalaries.html (last visited Mar 21, 2018).
173 See, e.g., Tom Simonite, Apple’s Privacy Pledge Complicates Its Push Into Artificial
Intelligence, WIRED, Jul 14, 2017, https://www.wired.com/story/apple-ai-privacy/ (last
visited Mar 21, 2018).

40

cases even where they lack training data. In the very least, it provides
greater leverage to these technology companies in partnership negotiations
with existing companies within a sector that do possess real world data.
Meta-learning is likely to have a similar impact in practice, though in
theory it should act as a leveler in the space. Meta-learning enables
computational power to offset the advantages that a competitor may have in
human machine learning expertise and talent. As the research matures and
the techniques become increasingly commoditized, the autonomous
construction of learning architectures may allow industries with extensive
data and access to computing power to develop their own machine learning
driven products effectively.
But, it is unclear at what rate meta-learning will become more
commodified and usable by non-specialists. Though it seems poised to
accelerate development times and improve the performance of learning
architectures, meta-learning itself at the moment continues to require
technical expertise and computational power to leverage effectively.
Established technology companies may very well stand to gain again from
these research developments, given their existing endowments of compute
and expertise. In this view, meta-learning will tend to act as a force
multiplier for entities which already have machine learning talent on hand,
rather than democratizing the technology to entities with no experts at all.
These trends tend to suggest greater consolidation in the marketplace
of companies offering products and services driven by machine learning.
Simulation learning, self-play, and meta-learning all chip away at the
potential advantage that non-AI focused industries might have in competing
to offer their own machine learning systems: their data. In the very least,
these trends suggest that one likely outcome is an ecosystem in which other
industries rely on a handful of leading technology companies who provide
these technologies as an “as a service” platform. This already seems to be in
progress, as Google, Amazon, and a number of other companies compete to
offer machine learning capabilities as a series of commodified APIs.174
CONCLUSION: PROSPECTS FOR GOVERNANCE

See, e.g., Google, Google Cloud: Machine Learning at Scale,
https://cloud.google.com/products/machine-learning/; Amazon, Machine Learning on
AWS, https://aws.amazon.com/machine-learning/.
174

41

Computational power does more than simply enable the current
generation of breakthroughs in machine learning. Trends in computational
architecture, semiconductor supply chains, and the field of machine learning
itself suggest the multifaceted ways in which hardware plays a role in
influencing the immediate and long-term impact of the technology on
society.
These changes in the underlying hardware layer would appear to
accentuate many existing concerns that have been raised around AI.
Progression towards more specialized hardware seems to expand the
privacy concerns presented by the technology, and present challenges to the
nimble repair of these systems in the field. Evolving competition in the
semiconductor industry seems likely to make machine learning a flashpoint
in the broader economic conflicts between the US and China.
Breakthroughs in simulation learning, self-play, and meta-learning seem
likely to expand incumbent market power and potentially accelerate labor
displacement.
Simultaneously, seeing these issues through the lens of hardware also
raises opportunities for governance. Computational power is intimately
linked to a nexus of issues in civil rights, consumer safety, geopolitical
competition, labor policy, and corporate power. In contrast to the software
and data that the practice of machine learning relies on, hardware and its
production is more centralized, more able to be monitored, and less able to
evade efforts to govern it. Hardware therefore offers one tangible point of
control for those seeking to find levers on which to base policy and
effectively shape the social impact of the technology.
Public policy to shape the markets and design of machine learning
hardware might manifest in a range of different ways. Existing tools in the
form of export controls and trade policy will play a significant role,
especially given the specific political geography of the actors leading the
design and actual fabrication of these chips. Industrial policy which aims to
accelerate the development of a domestic semiconductor sector like
SEMATECH, or otherwise ensure reliable access to computational power
by companies and government actors working at the software layer of
machine learning, will also play an important role. As FPGAs and ASICs
broaden the potential range of contexts in which machine learning inference
might be deployed, new regulations and industry standards might also serve
to enshrine particular architectures for delivering machine learning products
and services.

42

It is important to recognize that the current affordance that
computational power provides to those thinking about the governance of AI
may not be permanent. The machine learning field continues to evolve at a
rapid rate, and new discoveries may change the relative importance and
economics of computational power going forwards. Rapid advances in
“one-shot learning”, which aim to enable machines to train effectively on
smaller numbers of examples; or “transfer learning”, which works to allow
machines to effectively use knowledge from one domain in another, may
reduce the need for computational power. Indeed, a dependence on machine
learning hardware and concerns about reliable access to it may itself
motivate increased investment and more rapid progress on solving these
types of technical problems.
As with simulation learning and self-play, it is possible that these
research areas may have a narrower influence, influencing only specific
domains and settings in which machine learning is deployed. Much of what
we currently understand about machine learning suggests that significant
computational power will continue to be a key component in building
effective systems.175 Regardless, any policy developed around such a fastmoving technology must take a potential future rewrite of our existing
assumptions into account.
Multiple efforts have been launched to construct a global structure of
governance around the research, development, and application of AI.176
Many of these efforts are developing standards or sets of principles to guide
the actions of the technology industry and the broader community of
researchers and engineers working on machine learning.177 The aim has
This is particularly the case given the increased performance that more data seems to
promise. See Chen Sun et al., Revisiting Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data in Deep
Learning Era, arXiv:1707.02968 [cs] (2017), http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02968 (last visited
Mar 21, 2018).
176 See, e.g., The Partnership on AI, http://partnershiponai.org/; The IEEE Global Initiative
on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligence Systems, https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/;
Building Agile Governance for AI & Robotics (BGI4AI), https://bgi4ai.org/
177 See, e.g., Partnership on AI, Tenets, https://www.partnershiponai.org/tenets/; IEEE,
7000 - Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design,
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/project/7000.html; Future of Life, Asilomar AI Principles,
https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/; The Conference Towards AI Network Society,
http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000507517.pdf; DJ Patil, A Code of Ethics for Data
Science (2018), https://medium.com/@dpatil/a-code-of-ethics-for-data-sciencecda27d1fac1 (last visited Mar 22, 2018). For further sets of principles, see, e.g., Accenture,
An Ethical Framework for Responsible AI and Robots, https://www.accenture.com/gben/company-responsible-ai-robotics; The Future Computed: Artificial Intelligence and its
role in society, The Official Microsoft Blog (2018),
175

43

been to attempt to shape norms around how the technology is applied, and
the ethical responsibilities around the use of data as an input in the training
process. This is one approach, one which is likely to become increasingly
difficult to enforce effectively as the set of actors that might use the
technology for good or for ill, responsibly or irresponsibly, continues to
expand. As this transition occurs, governance efforts focused on shaping the
direction and availability of computational power may offer a useful
addition to the toolkit of policy options, and an increasingly important one
at that.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/01/17/future-computed-artificial-intelligence-rolesociety/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018); Larry Dignan, IBM’s Rometty lays out AI
considerations, ethical principles ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/article/ibms-rometty-laysout-ai-considerations-ethical-principles/ (last visited Mar 21, 2018).

44

