🇺🇸 미국 · IT/기술 · "PRODUCTION" · 총 20건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 11,953건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 1건(0.0%)·중립 11,951건(100.0%)·부정 1건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 19.1(중도 균형)입니다.
With demand booming for printed circuit boards, the U.S. government is trying to boost domestic production to move away from reliance on China.
Comments
India’s largest streaming platform, JioHotstar, is recruiting for more than 75 AI roles as the platform moves to build out a dedicated artificial intelligence division, the company revealed Wednesday. The push spans engineering, production automation and creative technology, with the streamer positioning India’s multilingual scale and engineering base as the foundation for a broader global […]
Six job-specific plugins for data analytics, creative production, sales, product design, and finance expand Codex beyond its coding roots
At SXSW London, Canadian production designer Patrice Vermette took the audience inside his process, talking about “method designing" and "scientific jam sessions."
OpenAI released a set of six plug-ins aimed at specific jobs: data analytics, creative production, sales, product design, equity investing, and investment banking. Available from within the Codex app, each of the new tools bundles integrations, instructions, and context to allow Codex to approximate a specific job.
It's early June, which means it's video game event season once again. Now that E3 has been gone for a few years, a bunch of showcases and presentations have started to fill the void, including big productions like Summer Game Fest Live and smaller affairs like Wholesome Games Direct. If you love following gaming news, […]
My eyes have seen the PC gaming promised land, and it's a beautifully bright world without a shred of blurriness. It's warm, it looks lovely, and it's impeccably sharp. Also, it's expensive as hell. I've dipped my toe in this world by testing a pre-production version of the upcoming Asus ROG Strix Scar 18, which […]
Comments
As AI agents move from experiments to production, AWS, Cloudflare, and others are redesigning cloud infrastructure for a future dominated by machine-generated internet traffic instead of human users.
I have been an application-specific IC (ASIC) designer for almost three decades. Over that time, I’ve moved through the full academic trajectory, from graduate student to full professor; later, I transitioned to industry after an unsuccessful stint at entrepreneurship. When I made the switch to the private sector in 2019, I began focusing on a critically important aspect of the electronic industry: silicon intellectual property. As much as 80 percent of the physical area in today’s most advanced chips is occupied by blocks that aren’t made for specific products or even designed by the consumer-facing companies that built them. Instead, chipmakers draw heavily on established silicon IP from companies like Arm, Cadence, Rambus, Synopsys, and the company I work for, Silicon Creations. Throughout my career, I’ve designed chips for very different purposes, including enabling the research program in my academic lab and expanding the IP portfolio of my company. When I joined Silicon Creations, I had no idea how differently the industry approaches IC design and encountered a steep learning curve. Initially, it seemed that much of my two decades of academic research and training did not directly translate to the role. I had to learn new skills and adopt a new mindset. Today, demand for ASICs is rapidly growing, driven by the need for specialized chips in the automotive sector, AI applications, and more. By one market estimate, the ASIC market is expected to grow from US $23.4 billion to $38.8 billion by 2033, and the semiconductor industry as a whole is projected to hit $1 trillion by 2030. The industry needs more chip designers—but if you’re coming from an academic background as I did, there are a few things you’ll need to know. Different goals lead to different strategies The differences between industry and academe begin with a divergence in purpose. In academia, my primary objective was to generate new knowledge: to propose a novel circuit technique, validate an unconventional architecture, or explore the limits of performance in a given domain. A successful chip is one that demonstrates a concept. In industry, it is not nearly enough to prove that something can work. The goal is to ensure that it works reliably, repeatedly, and at scale. Success is measured not by novelty but by whether the silicon meets specifications, yields as expected in production, and supports a competitive product delivered on schedule. This leads to a stark contrast in risk tolerance. Academic designs often deliberately push into unproven territory, where even partial success can yield valuable insight. In industry, however, we systematically minimize risk. The cost of failure makes first-time silicon success a central requirement—especially at advanced technology nodes, where the lithography masks used to transfer circuit designs onto silicon wafers alone can cost tens of millions of dollars. As a result, industry design flows are built around eliminating uncertainty through conservative margins, extensive validation, and careful reuse of proven solutions. “Academia explores the design space, asking what is possible, while industry exploits it, determining what is viable at scale.” This paradigm has existed since the 1970s, when application-specific chip design was established. However, the gulf between academia and industry has expanded since the mid-2010s, when FinFET technology, a 3D architecture using vertical “fins” of silicon, was widely adopted in industry. System designs are also becoming increasingly modular with the advent of chiplets. This fundamentally altered the economics and complexity of ASIC development, with design costs rising by almost an order of magnitude. Initiatives like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s University FinFET Program and new government-funded chip-design hubs now let some well-resourced universities design for more advanced architectures, but the technology is still out of reach for many academics. What the industry-academia split means in practice Consider a startup developing an ASIC. Its engineering team may have deep expertise in a particular algorithm, sensor interface, or system architecture, the features that define its competitive advantage. But it is unlikely to possess world-class expertise in every supporting function. Developing each of these blocks internally would require significant time, capital, and specialized talent. Doing so could delay market entry beyond the startup’s viability. Even large semiconductor companies face similar constraints. Advanced-node development demands intense focus. Allocating a team to redesign a standard interface block that has already been implemented elsewhere may be difficult to justify when differentiation lies at the system level, such as an inference chip’s ability to speed up neural network computations. The time it takes to move a new chip from conception to market and risk mitigation, not self-sufficiency, govern most decisions about in-house development versus outsourcing. The economics of advanced IC manufacturing reinforce this reality. When the development cost of a leading-edge chip reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, minimizing risk becomes a central design imperative. In this context, silicon IP emerged as a practical solution. Similar to how software developers rely on preexisting libraries rather than writing every function from scratch, ASIC designers license predesigned, preverified silicon blocks—such as processor cores, memory interfaces, and security engines—from highly specialized IP vendors. These blocks can then be integrated into larger, increasingly complex systems. Design scope, verification, and time horizons With the use of silicon IP, industry is able to widen the scope of its designs. Academic efforts tend to focus on block-level innovation: a new analog-to-digital converter architecture or an ultralow-noise amplifier, for instance. These designs typically abstract away many of the complexities of bringing a chip to market, such as packaging constraints, long-term reliability, and manufacturing yield. In industry, the focus shifts to system-level integration. Modern systems on chips, or SoCs, incorporate dozens or even hundreds of functional blocks. Managing signal integrity, timing, firmware interaction, and system-level validation becomes as critical as the design of any individual block. Verification philosophy also diverges sharply. In academia, the goal of verification is to demonstrate that the concept works under nominal conditions, which may not always reflect how it would perform in real applications. Even if only a fraction of fabricated chips from a multiproject wafer operates correctly, the design may still be considered a success if it validates the underlying idea. At my academic lab for instance, we used to receive 40 chips from a TSMC prototyping service and started testing them in batches of five. If the first five or 10 chips proved functional, we had already collected more than enough data for a publication. If some of them failed, we weren’t required to mention this when publishing the results. In industry, verification is exhaustive, critical, and often dominates the development schedule. Failures are measured in parts per million, and even rare anomalies are carefully analyzed and documented to identify root causes and prevent recurrence. When I started at Silicon Creations, I was surprised by the level of detail and scrutiny designs face. Differences in time horizons and economic constraints reinforce each of these contrasts. Academic projects operate on flexible timelines aligned with research and funding cycles. If I missed a deadline, I just had to wait for the next cycle. Industry projects are driven by fixed product schedules and market windows, frequently targeting costly leading-edge nodes to achieve competitive performance, power, and area efficiency. Missing a deadline can negate the value of an entire design and may have major financial consequences along the entire supply chain. In essence, academia explores the design space, asking what is possible, while industry exploits it, determining what is viable at scale. Both are indispensable, but they operate under fundamentally different definitions of success. As ASIC complexity continues to grow, understanding both perspectives will be essential for the next generation of engineers navigating the evolving semiconductor landscape. This article appears in the June 2026 print issue.
The Chinese company is adapting to the demise of Moore’s Law, which guides chip production. It could complicate US chip dominance.
Pixar's Toy Story took four years. Critterz aims to make an AI-assisted animated feature in one. Inside the production argument it took to Cannes.
Comments
The startup Boston Metal has raised a $75 million funding round to produce critical metals, MIT Technology Review can exclusively report. The company has been known largely for its efforts to clean up steel production, an industry that’s responsible for about 8% of global greenhouse emissions today. With the additional money, the new focus could…
The era of ultra-high performance Mercedes EVs is here. The German automaker finally revealed its new super sedan, the AMG GT 4-door coupe, with technology borrowed from the automaker's XX concept that last year made history by driving 24,901 miles in under 8 days at Nardò Ring in southern Italy. With the production model, Mercedes […]
Each year, some of the power solar could have produced is blocked by aerosols.
Transforming a newly discovered software vulnerability into a cyberattack used to take months. Today—as the recent headlines over Anthropic’s Project Glasswing have shown—generative AI can do the job in minutes, often for less than a dollar of cloud-computing time. But while large language models present a real cyberthreat, they also provide an opportunity to reinforce cyberdefenses. Anthropic reports its Claude Mythos preview model has already helped defenders preemptively discover over a thousand zero-day vulnerabilities, including flaws in every major operating system and web browser, with Anthropic coordinating disclosure and its efforts to patch the revealed flaws. It is not yet clear whether AI-driven bug finding will ultimately favor attackers or defenders. But to understand how defenders can increase their odds, and perhaps hold the advantage, it helps to look at an earlier wave of automated vulnerability discovery. In the early 2010s, a new category of software appeared that could attack programs with millions of random, malformed inputs—a proverbial monkey at a typewriter, tapping on the keys until it finds a vulnerability. When such “fuzzers” like American Fuzzy Lop (AFL) hit the scene, they found critical flaws in every major browser and operating system. The security community’s response was instructive. Rather than panic, organizations industrialized the defense. For instance, Google built a system called OSS-Fuzz that runs fuzzers continuously, around the clock, on thousands of software projects. So software providers could catch bugs before they shipped, not after attackers found them. The expectation is that AI-driven vulnerability discovery will follow the same arc. Organizations will integrate the tools into standard development practice, run them continuously, and establish a new baseline for security. But the analogy has a limit. Fuzzing requires significant technical expertise to set up and operate. It was a tool for specialists. An LLM, meanwhile, finds vulnerabilities with just a prompt—resulting in a troubling asymmetry. Attackers no longer need to be technically sophisticated to exploit code, while robust defenses still require engineers to read, evaluate, and act on what the AI models surface. The human cost of finding and exploiting bugs may approach zero, but fixing them won’t. Is AI Better at Finding Bugs Than Fixing Them? In the opening to his book Engineering Security (2014), Peter Gutmann observed that “a great many of today’s security technologies are ‘secure’ only because no one has ever bothered to look at them.” That observation was made before AI made looking for bugs dramatically cheaper. Most present-day code—including the open source infrastructure that commercial software depends on—is maintained by small teams, part-time contributors, or individual volunteers with no dedicated security resources. A bug in any open source project can have significant downstream impact, too. In 2021, a critical vulnerability in Log4j—a logging library maintained by a handful of volunteers—exposed hundreds of millions of devices. Log4j’s widespread use meant that a vulnerability in a single volunteer-maintained library became one of the most widespread software vulnerabilities ever recorded. The popular code library is just one example of the broader problem of critical software dependencies that have never been seriously audited. For better or worse, AI-driven vulnerability discovery will likely perform a lot of auditing, at low cost and at scale. An attacker targeting an under-resourced project requires little manual effort. AI tools can scan an unaudited codebase, identify critical vulnerabilities, and assist in building a working exploit with minimal human expertise. Research on LLM-assisted exploit generation has shown that capable models can autonomously and rapidly exploit cyber weaknesses, compressing the time between disclosure of the bug and working exploit of that bug from weeks down to mere hours. Generative AI-based attacks launched from cloud servers operate staggeringly cheaply as well. In August 2025, researchers at NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering demonstrated that an LLM-based system could autonomously complete the major phases of a ransomware campaign for some $0.70 per run, with no human intervention. And the attacker’s job ends there. The defender’s job, on the other hand, is only getting underway. While an AI tool can find vulnerabilities and potentially assist with bug triaging, a dedicated security engineer still has to review any potential patches, evaluate the AI’s analysis of the root cause, and understand the bug well enough to approve and deploy a fully functional fix without breaking anything. For a small team maintaining a widely-depended-upon library in their spare time, that remediation burden may be difficult to manage even if the discovery cost drops to zero. Why AI Guardrails and Automated Patching Aren’t the Answer The natural policy response to the problem is to go after AI at the source: holding AI companies responsible for spotting misuse, putting guardrails in their products, and pulling the plug on anyone using LLMs to mount cyberattacks. There is evidence that pre-emptive defenses like this have some effect. Anthropic has published data showing that automated misuse detection can derail some cyberattacks. However, blocking a few bad actors does not make for a satisfying and comprehensive solution. At a root level, there are two reasons why policy does not solve the whole problem. The first is technical. LLMs judge whether a request is malicious by reading the request itself. But a sufficiently creative prompt can frame any harmful action as a legitimate one. Security researchers know this as the problem of the persuasive prompt injection. Consider, for example, the difference between “Attack website A to steal users’ credit card info” and “I am a security researcher and would like secure website A. Run a simulation there to see if it’s possible to steal users’ credit card info.” No one’s yet discovered how to root out the source of subtle cyberattacks, like in the latter example, with 100 percent accuracy. The second reason is jurisdictional. Any regulation confined to U.S.-based providers (or that of any other single country or region) still leaves the problem largely unsolved worldwide. Strong, open-source LLMs are already available anywhere the internet reaches. A policy aimed at handful of American technology companies is not a comprehensive defense. Another tempting fix is to automate the defensive side entirely—let AI autonomously identify, patch, and deploy fixes without waiting for an overworked volunteer maintainer to review them. Tools like GitHub Copilot Autofix generate patches for flagged vulnerabilities directly with proposed code changes. Several open-source security initiatives are also experimenting with autonomous AI maintainers for under-resourced projects. It is becoming much easier to have the same AI system find bugs, generate a patch, and update the code with no human intervention. But LLM-generated patches can be unreliable in ways that are difficult to detect. For example, even if they pass muster with popular code-testing software suites, they may still introduce subtle logic errors. LLM-generated code, even from the most powerful generative AI models out there, is still subject to a range of cyber-vulnerabilities. A coding agent with write access to a repository and no human in the loop is, in so many words, an easy target. Misleading bug reports, malicious instructions hidden in project files, or untrusted code pulled in from outside the project can turn an automated AI codebase maintainer into a cyber-vulnerability generator. Guardrails and automated patching are useful tools, but they share a common limitation. Both are ad hoc and incomplete. Neither addresses the deeper question of whether the software was built securely from the start. The more lasting solution is to prevent vulnerabilities from being introduced at all. No matter how deeply an AI system can inspect a project, it cannot find flaws that don’t exist. Memory-Safe Code Creates More Robust Defenses The most accessible starting point is the adoption of memory-safe languages. Simply by changing the programming language their coders use, organizations can have a large positive impact on their security. Both Google and Microsoft have found that roughly 70 percent of serious security flaws come down to the ways in which software manages memory. Languages like C and C++ leave every memory decision to the developer. And when something slips, even briefly, attackers can exploit that gap to run their own code, siphon data, or bring systems down. Languages like Rust go further; they make the most dangerous class of memory errors structurally impossible, not just harder to make. Memory-safe languages address the problem at the source, but legacy codebases written in C and C++ will remain a reality for decades. Software sandboxing techniques complement memory-safe languages by addressing what they cannot—containing the blast radius of vulnerabilities that do exist. Tools like WebAssembly and RLBox already demonstrate this in practice in web browsers and cloud service providers like Fastly and Cloudflare. However, while sandboxes dramatically raise the bar for attackers, they are only as strong as their implementation. Moreover, Anthropic reports that Claude Mythos has demonstrated that it can breach software sandboxes. For the most security-critical components, where implementation complexity is highest and the cost of failure greatest, a stronger guarantee still is available. Formal verification proves, mathematically, that certain bugs cannot exist. It treats code like a mathematical theorem. Instead of testing whether bugs appear, it proves that specific categories of flaw cannot exist under any conditions. AWS, Cloudflare, and Google already use formal verification to protect their most sensitive infrastructure—cryptographic code, network protocols, and storage systems where failure isn’t an option. Tools like Flux now bring that same rigor to everyday production Rust code, without requiring a dedicated team of specialists. That matters when your attacker is a powerful generative-AI system that can rapidly scan millions of lines of code for weaknesses. Formally verified code doesn’t just put up some fences and firewalls—it provably has no weaknesses to find. The defenses described above are asymmetric. Code written in memory-safe languages—separated by strong sandboxing boundaries and selectively formally verified—presents a smaller and much more constrained target. When applied correctly, these techniques can prevent LLM-powered exploitation, regardless of how capable an attacker’s bug-scanning tools become. Generative AI can support this more foundational shift by accelerating the translation of legacy code into safer languages like Rust, and making formal verification more practical at every stage. Which helps engineers write specifications, generate proofs, and keep those proofs current as code evolves. For organizations, the lasting solution is not just better scanning but stronger foundations: memory-safe languages where possible, sandboxing where not, and formal verification where the cost of being wrong is highest. For researchers, the bottleneck is making those foundations practical—and using generative AI to accelerate the migration. But instead of automated, ad hoc vulnerability patching, generative AI in this mode of defense can help translate legacy code to memory-safe alternatives. It also assists in verification proofs and lowers the expertise barrier to a safer and less vulnerable codebase. The latest wave of smarter AI bug scanners can still be useful for cyberdefense—not just as another overhyped AI threat. But AI bug scanners treat the symptom, not the cause. The lasting solution is software that doesn’t produce vulnerabilities in the first place.
Many of the world’s most advanced electronic systems—including Internet routers, wireless base stations, medical imaging scanners, and some artificial intelligence tools—depend on field-programmable gate arrays. Computer chips with internal hardware circuits, the FPGAs can be reconfigured after manufacturing. On 12 March, an IEEE Milestone plaque recognizing the first FPGA was dedicated at the Advanced Micro Devices campus in San Jose, Calif., the former Xilinx headquarters and the birthplace of the technology. The FPGA earned the Milestone designation because it introduced iteration to semiconductor design. Engineers could redesign hardware repeatedly without fabricating a new chip, dramatically reducing development risk and enabling faster innovation at a time when semiconductor costs were rising rapidly. The ceremony, which was organized by the IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section, brought together professionals from across the semiconductor industry and IEEE leadership. Speakers at the event included Stephen Trimberger, an IEEE and ACM Fellow whose technical contributions helped shape modern FPGA architecture. Trimberger reflected on how the invention enabled software-programmable hardware. Solving computing’s flexibility-performance tradeoff FPGAs emerged in the 1980s to address a core limitation in computing. A microprocessor executes software instructions sequentially, making it flexible but sometimes too slow for workloads requiring many operations at once. At the other extreme, application-specific integrated circuits are chips designed to do only one task. ASICs achieve high efficiency but require lengthy development cycles and nonrecurring engineering costs, which are large, upfront investments. Expenses include designing the chip and preparing it for manufacturing—a process that involves creating detailed layouts, building masks for the fabrication machines, and setting up production lines to handle the tiny circuits. “ASICs can deliver the best performance, but the development cycle is long and the nonrecurring engineering cost can be very high,” says Jason Cong, an IEEE Fellow and professor of computer science at the University of California, Los Angeles. “FPGAs provide a sweet spot between processors and custom silicon.” Cong’s foundational work in FPGA design automation and high-level synthesis transformed how reconfigurable systems are programmed. He developed synthesis tools that translate C/C++ into hardware designs, for example. At the heart of his work is an underlying principle first espoused by electrical engineer Ross Freeman: By configuring hardware using programmable memory embedded inside the chip, FPGAs combine hardware-level speed with the adaptability traditionally associated with software. Silicon Valley origins: the first FPGA The FPGA architecture originated in the mid-1980s at Xilinx, a Silicon Valley company founded in 1984. The invention is widely credited to Freeman, a Xilinx cofounder and the startup’s CTO. He envisioned a chip with circuitry that could be configured after fabrication rather than fixed permanently during creation. Articles about the history of the FPGA emphasize that he saw it as a deliberate break from conventional chip design. At the time, semiconductor engineers treated transistors as scarce resources. Custom chips were carefully optimized so that nearly every transistor served a specific purpose. Freeman proposed a different approach. He figured Moore’s Law would soon change chip economics. The principle holds that transistor counts roughly double every two years, making computing cheaper and more powerful. Freeman posited that as transistors became abundant, flexibility would matter more than perfect efficiency. He envisioned a device composed of programmable logic blocks connected through configurable routing—a chip filled with what he described as “open gates,” ready to be defined by users after manufacturing. Instead of fixing hardware in silicon permanently, engineers could configure and reconfigure circuits as requirements evolved. Freeman sometimes compared the concept to a blank cassette tape: Manufacturers would supply the medium, while engineers determined its function. The analogy captured a profound shift in who controls the technology, shifting hardware design flexibility from chip fabrication facilities to the system designers themselves. In 1985 Xilinx introduced the first FPGA for commercial sale: the XC2064. The device contained 64 configurable logic blocks—small digital circuits capable of performing logical operations—arranged in an 8-by-8 grid. Programmable routing channels allowed engineers to define how signals moved between blocks, effectively wiring a custom circuit with software. Fabricated using a 2-micrometer process (meaning that 2 µm was the minimum size of the features that could be patterned onto silicon using photolithography), the XC2064 implemented a few thousand logic gates. Modern FPGAs can contain hundreds of millions of gates, enabling vastly more complex designs. Yet the XC2064 established a design workflow still used today: Engineers describe the hardware behavior digitally and then “compile the design,” a process that automatically translates the plans into the instructions the FPGA needs to set its logic blocks and wiring, according to AMD. Engineers then load that configuration onto the chip. The breakthrough: hardware defined by memory Earlier programmable logic devices, such as erasable programmable read-only memory, or EPROM, allowed limited customization but relied on largely fixed wiring structures that did not scale well as circuits grew more complex, Cong says. FPGAs introduced programmable interconnects—networks of electronic switches controlled by memory cells distributed across the chip. When powered on, the device loads a bitstream configuration file that determines how its internal circuits behave. “As process technology improved and transistor counts increased, the cost of programmability became much less significant,” Cong says. From “glue logic” to essential infrastructure “Initially, FPGAs were used as what engineers called glue logic,” Cong says. Glue logic refers to simple circuits that connect processors, memory, and peripheral devices so the system works reliably, according to PC Magazine. In other words, it “glues” different components together, especially when interfaces change frequently. Early adopters recognized the advantage of hardware that could adapt as standards evolved. In “The History, Status, and Future of FPGAs,” published in Communications of the ACM, engineers at Xilinx and organizations such as Bell Labs, Fairchild Semiconductor, IBM, and Sun Microsystems said the earliest uses of FPGAs were for prototyping ASICs. They also used it for validating complex systems by running their software before fabrication, allowing the companies to deploy specialized products manufactured in modest volumes. Those uses revealed a broader shift: Hardware no longer needed to remain fixed once deployed. Attendees at the Milestone plaque dedication ceremony included (seated L to R) 2025 IEEE President Kathleen Kramer, 2024 IEEE President Tom Coughlin, and Santa Clara Valley Section Milestones Chair Brian Berg.Douglas Peck/AMD Semiconductor economics changed the equation The rise of FPGAs closely followed changes in semiconductor economics, Cong says. Developing a custom chip requires a large upfront investment before production begins. As fabrication costs increased, products had to ship in large quantities to make ASIC development economically viable, according to a post published by AnySilicon. FPGAs allowed designers to move forward without that larger monetary commitment. ASIC development typically requires 18 to 24 months from conception to silicon, while FPGA implementations often can be completed within three to six months using modern design tools, Cong says. The shorter cycle and the ability to reconfigure the hardware enabled startups, universities, and equipment manufacturers to experiment with advanced architectures that were previously accessible mainly to large chip companies. Lookup tables and the rise of reconfigurable computing A popular technique for implementing mathematical functions in hardware is the lookup table (LUT). A LUT is a small memory element that stores the results of logical operations, according to “LUT-LLM: Efficient Large Language Model Inference with Memory-based Computations on FPGAs,” a paper selected for presentation next month at the 34th IEEE International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM). Instead of repeatedly recalculating outcomes, the chip retrieves answers directly from memory. Cong compares the approach to consulting multiplication tables rather than recomputing the arithmetic each time. Research led by Cong and others helped develop efficient methods for mapping digital circuits onto LUT-based architectures, shaping routing and layout strategies used in modern devices. As transistor budgets expanded, FPGA vendors integrated memory blocks, digital signal-processing units, high-speed communication interfaces, cryptographic engines, and embedded processors, transforming the devices into versatile computing platforms. Why the gate arrays are distinct from CPUs, GPUs, and ASICs FPGAs coexist with other processors because each one optimizes different priorities. Central processing units excel at general computing. Graphics processing units, designed to perform many calculations simultaneously, dominate large parallel workloads such as AI training. ASICs provide maximum efficiency when designs remain stable and production volumes are high. “ASICs can deliver the best performance, but the development cycle is long, and the nonrecurring engineering cost can be very high. FPGAs provide a sweet spot between processors and custom silicon.” —Jason Cong, IEEE Fellow and professor of computer science at UCLA. “FPGAs are not replacements for CPUs or GPUs,” Cong says. “They complement those processors in heterogeneous computing systems.” Modern computing platforms increasingly combine multiple types of processors to balance flexibility, performance, and energy efficiency. A Milestone for an idea, not just a device This IEEE Milestone recognizes more than a successful semiconductor product. It also acknowledges a shift in how engineers innovate. Reconfigurable hardware allows designers to test ideas quickly, refine architectures, and deploy systems while standards and markets evolve. “Without FPGAs,” Cong says, “the pace of hardware innovation would likely be much slower.” Four decades after the first FPGA appeared, the technology’s enduring legacy reflects Freeman’s insight: Hardware did not need to remain fixed. By accepting a small amount of unused silicon in exchange for adaptability, engineers transformed chips from static products into platforms for continuous experimentation—turning silicon itself into a medium engineers could rewrite. Among those who attended the Milestone ceremony were 2025 IEEE President Kathleen Kramer; 2024 IEEE President Tom Coughlin; Avery Lu, chair of the IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section; and Brian Berg, history and milestones chair of IEEE Region 6. They joined AMD’s chief executive, Lisa Su, and Salil Raje, senior vice president and general manager of adaptive and embedded computing at AMD. The IEEE Milestone plaque honoring the field-programmable gate array reads: “The FPGA is an integrated circuit with user-programmable Boolean logic functions and interconnects. FPGA inventor Ross Freeman cofounded Xilinx to productize his 1984 invention, and in 1985 the XC2064 was introduced with 64 programmable 4-input logic functions. Xilinx’s FPGAs helped accelerate a dramatic industry shift wherein ‘fabless’ companies could use software tools to design hardware while engaging ‘foundry’ companies to handle the capital-intensive task of manufacturing the software-defined hardware.” Administered by the IEEE History Center and supported by donors, the IEEE Milestone program recognizes outstanding technical developments worldwide that are at least 25 years old. Check out Spectrum’s History of Technology channel to read more stories about key engineering achievements.
Quantum computing is a devilishly complex technology, with many technical hurdles impacting its development. Of these challenges two critical issues stand out: miniaturization and qubit quality. IBM has adopted the superconducting qubit road map of reaching a 1,121-qubit processor by 2023, leading to the expectation that 1,000 qubits with today’s qubit form factor is feasible. However, current approaches will require very large chips (50 millimeters on a side, or larger) at the scale of small wafers, or the use of chiplets on multichip modules. While this approach will work, the aim is to attain a better path toward scalability. Now researchers at MIT have been able to both reduce the size of the qubits and done so in a way that reduces the interference that occurs between neighboring qubits. The MIT researchers have increased the number of superconducting qubits that can be added onto a device by a factor of 100. “We are addressing both qubit miniaturization and quality,” said William Oliver, the director for the Center for Quantum Engineering at MIT. “Unlike conventional transistor scaling, where only the number really matters, for qubits, large numbers are not sufficient, they must also be high-performance. Sacrificing performance for qubit number is not a useful trade in quantum computing. They must go hand in hand.” The key to this big increase in qubit density and reduction of interference comes down to the use of two-dimensional materials, in particular the 2D insulator hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). The MIT researchers demonstrated that a few atomic monolayers of hBN can be stacked to form the insulator in the capacitors of a superconducting qubit. Just like other capacitors, the capacitors in these superconducting circuits take the form of a sandwich in which an insulator material is sandwiched between two metal plates. The big difference for these capacitors is that the superconducting circuits can operate only at extremely low temperatures—less than 0.02 degrees above absolute zero (-273.15 °C). Superconducting qubits are measured at temperatures as low as 20 millikelvin in a dilution refrigerator.Nathan Fiske/MIT In that environment, insulating materials that are available for the job, such as PE-CVD silicon oxide or silicon nitride, have quite a few defects that are too lossy for quantum computing applications. To get around these material shortcomings, most superconducting circuits use what are called coplanar capacitors. In these capacitors, the plates are positioned laterally to one another, rather than on top of one another. As a result, the intrinsic silicon substrate below the plates and to a smaller degree the vacuum above the plates serve as the capacitor dielectric. Intrinsic silicon is chemically pure and therefore has few defects, and the large size dilutes the electric field at the plate interfaces, all of which leads to a low-loss capacitor. The lateral size of each plate in this open-face design ends up being quite large (typically 100 by 100 micrometers) in order to achieve the required capacitance. In an effort to move away from the large lateral configuration, the MIT researchers embarked on a search for an insulator that has very few defects and is compatible with superconducting capacitor plates. “We chose to study hBN because it is the most widely used insulator in 2D material research due to its cleanliness and chemical inertness,” said colead author Joel Wang, a research scientist in the Engineering Quantum Systems group of the MIT Research Laboratory for Electronics. On either side of the hBN, the MIT researchers used the 2D superconducting material, niobium diselenide. One of the trickiest aspects of fabricating the capacitors was working with the niobium diselenide, which oxidizes in seconds when exposed to air, according to Wang. This necessitates that the assembly of the capacitor occur in a glove box filled with argon gas. While this would seemingly complicate the scaling up of the production of these capacitors, Wang doesn’t regard this as a limiting factor. “What determines the quality factor of the capacitor are the two interfaces between the two materials,” said Wang. “Once the sandwich is made, the two interfaces are “sealed” and we don’t see any noticeable degradation over time when exposed to the atmosphere.” This lack of degradation is because around 90 percent of the electric field is contained within the sandwich structure, so the oxidation of the outer surface of the niobium diselenide does not play a significant role anymore. This ultimately makes the capacitor footprint much smaller, and it accounts for the reduction in cross talk between the neighboring qubits. “The main challenge for scaling up the fabrication will be the wafer-scale growth of hBN and 2D superconductors like [niobium diselenide], and how one can do wafer-scale stacking of these films,” added Wang. Wang believes that this research has shown 2D hBN to be a good insulator candidate for superconducting qubits. He says that the groundwork the MIT team has done will serve as a road map for using other hybrid 2D materials to build superconducting circuits.