Business Insider
중도 성향
IT/기술
Can America make the chip that rules the world?
Business Insider got rare access inside Intel's Oregon chip operation to see how some of the world's most advanced semiconductors are made in America.
🇺🇸 미국 · IT/기술 · "SEMICONDUCTOR" · 총 21건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 11,699건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 1건(0.0%)·중립 11,697건(100.0%)·부정 1건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 19.0(중도 균형)입니다.
Business Insider got rare access inside Intel's Oregon chip operation to see how some of the world's most advanced semiconductors are made in America.
May was the strongest month of the year for buying by retail investors, as individuals piled into semiconductor stocks.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's visit to South Korea underscores the country's AI boom and rising role in global semiconductor supply chain.
Asian technology shares fell, tracking losses in U.S. semiconductor stocks after disappointing earnings Broadcom sparked a rotation out of AI-linked names.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. - the world's biggest semiconductor-maker - is struggling to meet demands from American customers even with its factory buildout in the US, according to reports from Reuters and Bloomberg. "Customer demand is so high, and we can only support so much," TSMC CEO C.C. Wei said after a shareholder meeting on […]
Grimes County commissioners voted 4-1 to approve a 100% property tax abatement and reinvestment zone for SpaceX's proposed semiconductor facility
AI semiconductor sales hit $10.8 billion in the quarter, up 143% year over year, but shares fell on an underwhelming AI chip forecast
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang called the semiconductor company “so essential” to the development of artificial intelligence.
Electrons are great. We use them to move vehicles, illuminate cities, and, of course, compute. But computation is not confined to the world of electronics. And shifting to alternative nonelectronic realms can unlock unique advantages: Photonic chips, for instance, process information with light while generating little heat. Another compelling alternative is fluidics, which uses pressurized gases or liquids to build logic circuits. Pioneered in the 1960s but sidelined by microchips, the field reemerged in the 1990s as “microfluidics.” This approach aims to shrink laboratories onto a single chip by creating microscopic fluid channels with integrated micropneumatic control systems. Today, there is a second fluidic revival, this time in the domain of soft robotics. Scaling microfluidic designs up to the millimeter-scale range (millifluidics) enables the higher flow rates necessary to drive robotic actuators. These robots exploit the nonlinear behaviors of soft materials to create lifelike motion and safer interactions, often utilizing pressurized air. By building systems that “think” with the same air that powers them, we can drastically reduce the need for bulky electronic-to-pneumatic interfaces. This is the focus of my Soiboi Studio robotics lab. With millifluidic logic, I have steadily scaled the complexity of my designs. What began with a simple oscillator has most recently evolved into a clock featuring a soft, four-digit, seven-segment display. What Is Millifluidics? Building on microfluidics research from the early 2000s and recent developments from the Grover Lab at the University of California, Riverside, I’ve developed millifluidic devices using standard 3D printing and silicone casting. The basic architecture is simple: A flexible membrane is sandwiched between rigid layers embedded with networks of air channels. Just as electronics rely on differing voltage potentials, these fluidic circuits operate on the pressure difference between atmospheric pressure (logical 0) and a near-vacuum at around −60 kilopascals of relative pressure (logical 1). Using negative pressure means the membrane is pulled into openings. This creates robust seals that allow me to replicate electronic building blocks. A cast silicone membrane forms the face of the clock [top], while behind it sits 3D-printed millifluidic blocks [middle rows]. An Arduino Uno controls driver boards that operate solenoids, which are connected to valves that are attached to a vacuum pump [bottom row].James Provost While fluidic resistors are easily realized by adjusting the channel geometry, the heart of the system is a valve that mimics a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, or MOSFET. This vacuum “transistor” features a flow layer with two chambers (the source and drain) divided by a central valve seat and a control layer containing a cavity (the gate). A membrane runs between the control and flow layers and normally prevents airflow between the source and drain chambers. To switch the transistor on, a vacuum is applied to the gate chamber, sucking the membrane into the cavity and lifting it off the seat. This opens a path for airflow, equivalent to closing an electric circuit. By adding a small aperture to the membrane, I created a check valve—the fluidic equivalent of a diode. By combining transistors and resistive “pull-down” channels, I can build a full suite of logic gates. The original microfluidic designs that inspired me were fabricated from etched glass and milled acrylic. Adapting them for a standard 3D printer required reengineering the logic elements and mastering two critical fabrication techniques. First, I need airtight prints, yet printed plastic is notoriously porous. By printing at elevated temperatures, slow speeds, and slight overextrusion, I was able to fill microscopic gaps. When you’re using transparent filament, there’s a handy visual indicator: The more transparent the plastic appears, the lower its porosity. Second, I used glass for my print bed. By printing the upper and lower chambers directly against this bed, I got the interface surface to become mirror smooth. This finish is essential for creating reliable, airtight seals. A 0.3-millimeter silicone membrane is placed between the layers and secured with screws. How Does the Soft Clock Work? The clockface is a cast silicone membrane. Each digit segment is formed by a small underlying cavity. When air is evacuated from this cavity, the membrane is sucked inward to create a concave hollow; when atmospheric pressure is restored, the silicone pops back flush with the surface. The result is a mesmerizing, organic motion. The “brain” of the clock is an Arduino Uno, while the fluidics significantly reduce the hardware footprint. A four-digit, seven-segment display with two separator dots would require 29 solenoid valves to control directly. My clock needs just 11 valves. A pneumatic transistor is off when its upper control chamber is at atmospheric pressure [top]. When air is removed from the control chamber, it lifts a membrane, which allows air to flow between lower flow chambers and turns the transistor on [bottom]. James Provost To understand how it works, consider a standard electronic four-digit, seven-segment LED display. This also uses 11 pins to drive its digits. (In clockface displays, an additional pin is required to drive the separator dots.) Every digit is connected to a shared data bus with seven lines, one per segment. The four control lines select individual digits. Only one digit is illuminated at time, and strobing the digits at least 50 times per second creates the illusion that all four are simultaneously illuminated. Such high-speed switching is not possible with air. Instead, I rely on memory. Each segment acts like a capacitor: By evacuating its cavity (logic 1), you “charge” the segment; by restoring atmospheric pressure (logic 0), you discharge it. Hence, each digit acts as an independent 7-bit memory. If the system is sufficiently airtight, the segments maintain their state for several seconds. Like the electronic display, the system utilizes a seven-line data bus. Each line connects to a solenoid valve that provides either vacuum or atmospheric pressure. To selectively address the individual digits, I placed a fluidic transistor between each segment and its data line. All the transistors’ control inputs for a given digit are combined into one “write enable” line connected to its own solenoid valve. Activating this valve allows me to write data into the corresponding digit’s memory. The clock updates one digit per second, meaning a full cycle across the face takes 4 seconds. This cycle also drives the separator dots: A set of fluidic diodes connects the enable lines to the dots’ cavities. Consequently, as each digit is addressed, the dots pulse automatically. This display is more than a clock; it is a soft robot that happens to tell time. By offloading computation to the same air that powers movement, the clock approaches a new class of machines that are simpler, lighter, and more integrated. I’m now developing a guide for getting started with vacuum-powered logic and may release a refined version of this clock in the future. Watching the silicone skin morph serves as a fascinating reminder that not all logic needs silicon; sometimes, all you need is flexible silicone and a flow of air. This article appears in the June 2026 print issue as “The Soft Clock.”
Also: All the news and watercooler chat from Fortune.
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.
This article is adapted by the author with permission from Tech Policy Press. Read the original article. South Africa is not just another developing country struggling to govern artificial intelligence; it is the exception with leverage, and the window to act on it is closing. It holds approximately 88 percent of global platinum-group metal reserves, critical inputs to parts of the semiconductor and data-center supply chains that make AI infrastructure possible. It hosts the largest data-center market on the continent. Its existing hyperscaler relationships give it procurement leverage that most African states will never have. And a major geopolitical contest over AI infrastructure is being fought on its soil right now, between Chinese and American technology companies competing for control of the systems that will underpin an entire continent’s public sector. In physics, leverage requires three things: a fulcrum, a lever arm, and the ability to apply force. The Bushveld Complex, the world’s largest platinum-group metal deposit, is the fulcrum: a mineral endowment that gives South Africa a position in the semiconductor supply chain that no other African state holds. The since-withdrawn draft policy is the lever arm. The unresolved “OPTION” provisions in the policy are where force would be applied. Without a policy that specifies what South Africa wants in return for market access, the lever arm sits unused, and the weight of two of the world’s largest technology ecosystems settles exactly where those ecosystems want it to settle. This makes South Africa a global test case. Not because its proposed means of governance is exemplary, but because it is the one developing country with enough structural leverage to negotiate genuinely different terms, and the one that is choosing, through inaction, not to. The recent announcement of a new panel to update the draft policy is an important opportunity. But the deeper failure is not that an AI policy contained bad references. It is that no verification process caught them before the document entered the public domain. That is a systems problem, not merely a political one. It points to a missing layer in how governments are adopting AI. The contest already underway Last year, Huawei pitched an emerging-product bundle to tech executives across the continent. Huawei was now bundling access to DeepSeek’s large language model with its own cloud and storage infrastructure. The price differential was stark—in some cases by more than 90 percent. At the same time, Microsoft announced plans to spend ZAR 5.4 billion ($300 million) by the end of 2027 on cloud and AI infrastructure in South Africa, building on a prior ZAR 20.4 billion investment. Google, Amazon Web Services, and Oracle already have cloud regions in the country. According to one analysis, the country’s data-center market was valued at US $2.16 billion in 2024, the largest in Africa. These are not commercially neutral investments. Huawei’s infrastructure reach has been explicitly linked to Chinese strategic objectives, including a documented track record of providing governments with surveillance infrastructure through its Safe Cities network. U.S. hyperscaler investment comes with its own dependency structure: closed models, pricing set unilaterally, and terms of access that no African government has meaningfully shaped. South Africa is being asked to choose between these dependency models without a policy that specifies what it wants in return. The leverage it has There is a particular irony in South Africa’s position. The country whose mines supply platinum-group metals essential to semiconductor manufacturing, and through them to AI compute, has drafted a policy that treats it as a consumer of AI systems rather than a stakeholder in their governance. South Africa digs up the minerals that make AI possible. It has no say over the AI built from them. The AI triad framework covers algorithms, compute, and data. South Africa has no frontier model development capacity. South Africa holds significant data assets in financial services, health care, and agriculture, with no clear framework for their sovereign management. South Africa possesses PGM (Platinum Group Metals) leverage of global significance on the compute axis, currently being transferred without meaningful condition. It also has exceptionally high solar irradiance and significant renewable-energy potential. A country that can offer both critical mineral inputs and the energy to power the infrastructure those minerals help build occupies a negotiating position of unusual strength. The Draft Policy proposes no minimum terms for hyperscaler investment, no data sovereignty requirements, no technology transfer conditions and no compute visibility mechanism. Multiple provisions are explicitly left unresolved, marked “OPTION,” including the most consequential choices about how governance will function. Infrastructure decisions made now determine what is renegotiable later, and the answer is: very little. Three futures, one default The three infrastructure futures on offer each create a structurally different form of dependency, and only one creates sovereign capability. The Huawei-hosted DeepSeek integration offers low cost and open-source weights, but with data stored on infrastructure potentially accessible under Chinese legal frameworks, creating surveillance dependency in a pattern already documented across Africa. The second is U.S. closed-model dependency: higher capability, more reliable data protection, but complete API dependency on developers abroad. The third is locally hosted open-weight infrastructure: models governed under South African data-sovereignty rules, on infrastructure subject to minimum terms, developed with South African data. As Nathan Lambert at Interconnects has observed, open-weight models are likely the only realistic way to get sovereign AI off the ground as a real effort, enabling local communities and economies to integrate meaningfully with the technology. But this requires procurement conditions, not goodwill. What binding governance looks like The GovAI “Governing Through the Cloud” framework identifies four roles compute providers should accept as conditions of operating at scale: securers (protecting model weights and training data), record keepers (maintaining infrastructure usage logs), verifiers (confirming customer compliance with safety standards) and enforcers (restricting access when violations occur). These are operational requirements, not theoretical categories—specific, enforceable, and well within the bargaining power of a market of South Africa’s size and mineral position. A detailed policy analysis submitted to the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) identifies the specific provisions the final policy must contain: mandatory minimum terms for foreign compute infrastructure investments above ZAR 500 million (~$30 million); a compute reporting threshold; a National AI Safety Institute mandate covering defensive monitoring of AI capability accumulation; and National AI Champion Sector designations to create data assets for domestic model development. Each provision converts a structural advantage into a governance instrument before that advantage is foreclosed by market reality. Just as modern software security increasingly depends on knowing what components are inside a system—model provider, training data, compute environment, evaluation methods, update cadence, human review points, and failure-reporting procedures—public-sector AI governance requires a clear account of the stack before deployment, not after a problem surfaces. A public institution that cannot verify the sources in its own AI policy is unlikely to be ready to verify the AI systems it procures, deploys, or regulates. Why this is the continental test case South Africa’s choices will establish a regional precedent for what is commercially negotiable in AI infrastructure. If South Africa negotiates data-sovereignty guarantees and technology-transfer conditions as requirements for hyperscaler investment, it creates a replicable model. If Microsoft’s $300 million investment and Huawei’s infrastructure expansion proceed on standard commercial terms, as they are currently, it normalizes extractive AI infrastructure across the continent. The lesson is not specific to Africa. Governments everywhere are producing AI strategies while lacking AI assurance infrastructure. South Africa is an early warning, not an isolated case. The public comment period closed when the policy was withdrawn. But a parallel process remains live: the National Treasury’s Draft General Public Procurement Regulations—the legal instrument that will govern every government AI contract—closes for comment on June 15. Those regulations contain no AI-specific provisions. South Africa has more AI leverage than any country on the continent. Some argue, with force, that governance requirements risk deterring the infrastructure investment South Africa urgently needs: compute capacity, reliable energy, venture capital, and talent retention. That concern deserves a direct answer. Minimum procurement terms, compute reporting thresholds, and technology transfer conditions are not barriers to investment. They are the conditions under which investment serves the host country rather than extracting from it. Infrastructure built without minimum terms produces dependency. Infrastructure built with them produces leverage. To serve the public interest, its AI policy must use it. When late last month News24 reported AI-hallucinated references in the draft AI policy, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi withdrew the draft policy. That was a mistake that could cost South Africa and the rest of the continent the initiative on this urgent issue. His more recent constitution of an independent panel is a belated step in the right direction, if it can turn South Africa’s leverage into policy. The panel—chaired by Professor Benjamin Rosman of the Wits Machine Intelligence and Neural Discovery Institute, and including Professors Vukosi Marivate and Alison Gillwald of Research ICT Africa and Dr. Jabu Mtsweni of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research—has the technical and governance credibility to produce a stronger document. What it has not yet produced is a timeline. No revised draft has been scheduled. South Africa remains without a formal AI governance framework in the interim.
This sponsored article is brought to you by Master Bond. Outgassing is the release of volatile substances from a cured adhesive over time. These released materials, which may include residual solvents, unreacted monomers, or other chemical species, can deposit on nearby surfaces, causing contamination that interferes with sensitive components. What Is Outgassing and How Is It Measured? The industry standard for measuring outgassing is ASTM E595, developed by NASA. This test exposes a cured sample to 125 °C at high vacuum (10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ torr) for 24 hours, measuring Total Mass Loss (TML) and Collected Volatile Condensable Materials (CVCM). To meet NASA low outgassing requirements, materials must exhibit less than 1 percent TML and less than 0.1 percent CVCM. Optical assemblies need contamination-free bonding and prevention of fogging the optics to maintain clarity. High-vacuum scientific equipment, semiconductor manufacturing tools, and aerospace electronics also demand low outgassing materials. Key Applications Low outgassing adhesives are essential wherever contamination could compromise performance and this is particularly relevant for space and satellite systems. Optical assemblies, including cameras, telescopes, and laser systems, need contamination-free bonding and prevention of fogging the optics to maintain clarity. High-vacuum scientific equipment, semiconductor manufacturing tools, and aerospace electronics also demand low outgassing materials. Even terrestrial optical devices benefit from reduced outgassing to ensure long-term reliability. EP30-2 is a versatile system can be used in a variety of applications in aerospace, electronic, optical and specialty OEM industries, especially when optical clarity and low outgassing are important criteria.Master Bond Ensuring Low Outgassing Performance Through Proper Handling Achieving specified outgassing performance requires attention to storage, mixing, and curing. For two-part systems, use the correct mix ratio and mix thoroughly to ensure complete reaction. Follow recommended cure schedules — adding heat, even at modest temperatures of 150-200 °F, significantly improves cross-linking and reduces outgassing. For UV-curable adhesives, ensure complete cure by using the correct lamp wavelength (typically 365 nm), adequate intensity, and proper exposure time with no shadowed areas. Troubleshooting Outgassing Issues If contamination appears on optical surfaces or outgassing test results are higher than expected, an incomplete cure might be one of the root causes. The first step is to verify that the adhesive has fully hardened to its specified Shore hardness. The next step is to consider adding or extending heat cure to improve cross-linking. Master Bond Product Recommendations Master Bond offers a range of adhesives meeting NASA low outgassing requirements. EP30-2 and EP21TCHT-1 are some examples of two-part epoxy systems that have been successfully deployed in demanding vacuum applications, including ultra-high vacuum environments. For applications requiring UV cure, Master Bond provides specialty UV formulations such as UV16 meeting ASTM E595, as well as dual-cure systems (UV plus heat) such as UV22DC80-10F for assemblies where shadows prevent complete UV exposure. These dual-cure products initiate with UV light and complete curing with heat as low as 180 °F (80 °C).
The OnCampus program, administered by IEEE Educational Activities, last year expanded its engineering experiences from two to seven universities. Part of TryEngineering, the program is held at universities around the world, offering preuniversity students hands-on opportunities to solve engineering problems. The IEEE Innovation Committee provided funding for the additional locations. New participating institutions The electrical engineering and computing faculty at the University of Zagreb, in Croatia, hosted a two-day program in June. Twenty-five children ages 10 to 14 participated in lectures and workshops on artificial intelligence, computer science, robotics, and astronomy. Tomislav Jagušt, an IEEE senior member and the chair of the IEEE preuniversity coordinating committee, led the program. In September the Arab Academy for Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport’s engineering college held a two-day session at its Abu Kir, Egypt, campus. Fifty students participated in hands-on activities on Ohm’s law, radio communications, and circuit building. They also learned from professors about engineering careers and job opportunities. Also in September, the Majan University College, in Muscat, Oman, hosted 40 high school students who competed in six challenges to design and build circuits. These include an IoT design and an LED brightness control using a potentiometer, a three-terminal, manually adjustable resistor that functions as a variable voltage divider. The program also highlighted AI and quantum computing technologies and introduced students to job opportunities in the fields. The workshop transformed curiosity into creation, empowering students with technical skills and confidence in emerging technologies. In November at the Universiti Malaysia Perlis, in Arau, 50 students explored the fundamentals of quantum computational intelligence and AI through hands-on activities and interactive simulations. IEEE Senior Member Mohd Hafiz Ismail, a professor of electronic engineering and technology, gave an introduction about quantum computing intelligence technology. The Hellenic Robotics Center of Excellence at the National Technical University of Athens hosted a two-day session in December. Twenty-five students explored robotics and AI through hands-on design challenges such as TryEngineering’s AI and machine learning methods. They also toured the university’s research facilities. Hong Kong and Greek universities participate again The City University and St. Francis University in Hong Kong, and the University of Ioannina, Arta campus, Greece, participated in the program for a second year. Under the leadership of IEEE Senior Member Paulina Chan and volunteers from the IEEE Hong Kong Section, the City and St. Francis universities jointly held the program in July. They welcomed 55 students ages 12 to 18 from 41 schools. The students attended tutorials on foundational concepts and theories of AI. They worked in small teams on projects using AI-generated images, voice, and music manipulations. They were coached by students from St. Francis and Imperial College London. The participants presented their projects to judges, teachers, and parents. The students also visited a nearby semiconductor equipment manufacturer to learn about technology careers from engineers working there. The results of a post-program survey showed strong satisfaction with OnCampus, with nearly 75 percent of participants giving it a rating of 4 or higher out of 5. “I enjoyed getting to know about deep learning and its application,” one student participant said. “The content of the activity matched my interest, and I gained new knowledge.” “OnCampus is led by a strong team with lots of experts in the field,” another said. “It’s a rare chance for students to use software, learn about the theory behind how deep learning works, and get a glance at future possibilities.” The University of Ioannina hosted the program in Arta in July with support from IEEE Senior Member Stamatis Dragoumanos and IEEE members Nikos Giannakeas and Eleftheria Kallinikou. Nearly 50 students, ages 12 to 16, attended the seven-day event, supported by 17 instructors and six volunteers from the university’s IEEE student branch. The students learned about AI, augmented reality, microchip design, microcontrollers, and 3D printing. They also attended presentations by engineers from the industry. To give the students exposure to real-world engineering, they visited two hydroelectric power plants and a green data center. At the end of the program, students presented their projects and showcased the technical skills they had developed. Those involved in the TryEngineering OnCampus program are proud of the impactful experiences students have gained. The opportunities are possible because universities open their doors, share their expertise, and invest in the next generation of innovators. The University of Zagreb, the Arab Academy for Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport, the Majan University College, and The City University and St. Francis University will be participating again this year. To learn how you can bring the OnCampus program to your educational institution, send a request to tryengineering@ieee.org.
Huawei will start making 1.4-nanometer chips by 2031 with its own “LogicFolding” technology, Huawei’s semiconductor chief He Tingbo said Monday.
Discover how the ZEISS Crossbeam 750 FIBSEM sets a new benchmark for precise TEM lamella prep, tomography, and advanced nanofabrication. This delivers better resolution, better SNR, larger usable FOV, and shorter acquisition times. Learn how uninterrupted FIB milling will reduce damage and rework, accelerate time to TEM, and increase first pass success—so your FA, yield, and materials teams make faster, confident data driven decisions. Join us to discover how the new ZEISS Crossbeam 750 with its see while you mill capability delivers precision and clarity—every time—for demanding FIB-SEM workflows. Designed for extremely challenging TEM lamella preparation, tomography, advanced nanofabrication, and APT‑ready lift‑out, Crossbeam 750 combines a new Gemini 4 SEM objective lens, a double deflector, and a next‑generation scan generator to elevate both image quality and process confidence. You’ll learn how better resolution and better SNR translate into more image detail and shorter acquisition times, while the low‑kV FIB performance enables more precise lamella prep. We’ll demonstrate High Dynamic Range (HDR) Mill + SEM—an interwoven SEM/FIB scanning mode that suppresses FIB‑generated background. This enables immediate, clean visual feedback, even during nudging the FIB pattern live while milling . The result: confident endpointing with uninterrupted FIB milling and pristine, metrology‑grade surfaces with the lowest possible sample damage. This session is ideal for semiconductor failure analysists, yield teams and materials scientists seeking faster time‑to‑TEM, higher first‑pass success, and consistent outcomes at low kV. See how Crossbeam 750 empowers you to make earlier stop‑milling decisions, cut rework, and reliably plan turnaround time—so you can move from sample to insight with confidence. Register now for this free webinar!
This sponsored article is brought to you by Applied Materials. At pivotal moments in history, progress has required more than individual brilliance. The most consequential breakthroughs — such as those achieved under the Human Genome Project — required a new operating paradigm: Concentrate the world’s best talent around a single mission, establish a common platform, share critical infrastructure, and collapse feedback loops. When stakes are high and timelines are compressed, sequential and siloed innovation simply cannot keep pace. Today’s AI era is creating an engineering race with similar demands. Every company is pushing to deliver higher-performance AI systems, faster. But performance is no longer defined by compute alone. AI workloads are increasingly dominated by the movement of data: In many cases, moving bits consumes as much — or more — energy than compute itself. As a result, reducing energy per bit can extend system‑level performance alongside gains in peak compute. The path to energy‑efficient AI therefore runs through system‑level engineering, spanning three tightly interconnected domains: Logic, where performance per watt depends on efficient transistor switching, low‑loss power, and signal delivery through dense wiring stacks. Memory, where surging bandwidth and capacity demands expose the memory wall, with processor capability advancing faster than memory access. Advanced packaging, where 3D integration, chiplet architectures, and high‑density interconnects bring compute and memory closer together — enabling system designs monolithic scaling can no longer sustain. These domains can no longer be optimized independently. Gains in logic efficiency stall without sufficient memory bandwidth. Advances in memory bandwidth fall short if packaging cannot deliver proximity within thermal and mechanical constraints. Packaging, in turn, is constrained by the precision of both front‑end device fabrication and back‑end integration processes. In the angstrom era, the hardest problems arise at the boundaries — between compute and memory in the package, front‑end and back‑end integration, and the tightly coupled process steps needed for precise 3D fabrication. And it is precisely this boundary‑driven complexity where the traditional innovation model breaks down. The Traditional R&D Workflow Is Too Slow for Angstrom‑Era AI For decades, the semiconductor industry’s R&D model has resembled a relay race. Capabilities are developed in one part of the ecosystem, handed off downstream through integration and manufacturing, evaluated by chip and system designers, and only then fed back for the next iteration. That model worked when progress was dominated by relatively modular steps that could be scaled independently and simply dropped into the manufacturing flow. But the AI timeline has upended these rules. At angstrom‑scale dimensions, the physics enforces inescapable coupling across the entire stack: materials choices shape integration schemes; integration defines design rules; design rules dictate power delivery; wiring sets thermal budgets; and thermals ultimately constrain packaging scaling. System architects simply cannot wait 10–15 years for each major semiconductor technology inflection to mature. Representing a roughly $5 billion investment, EPIC is the largest commitment to advanced semiconductor equipment R&D in U.S. history. A long‑term perspective is essential to align materials innovation with emerging device architectures — and to develop the tools and processes required to integrate both with manufacturable precision. At Applied Materials, together with our customers, we are charting a course across the next 3–4 generations, extending as far as 10 years down the roadmap. The angstrom era demands that we break down silos and bring together the industry’s best minds — from leading companies to leading academic institutions. If the problem is coupled, the solution must be coupled. If the timeline is compressed, the learning loop must be compressed. It’s not enough to just innovate — we must innovate how we innovate. EPIC: A Center and Platform for High‑Velocity Co‑Innovation This is the challenge that Applied Materials EPIC Center is designed to solve. Representing a roughly US $5 billion investment, EPIC is the largest commitment to advanced semiconductor equipment R&D in U.S. history. When it opens in 2026, it will deliver state‑of‑the‑art cleanroom capabilities built from the ground up to shorten the path from early‑stage research to full‑scale manufacturing. But the facilities are only one component of the model. EPIC is also a platform, an operating system for high-velocity co‑innovation that revolutionizes how ideas move from the lab to the fab. EPIC is a platform, an operating system for high-velocity co‑innovation that revolutionizes how ideas move from the lab to the fab.Applied Materials The EPIC model compresses the traditional workflow. Customer engineers work side‑by‑side with Applied technologists from day one — moving beyond isolated process optimization and downstream handoffs. Within a shared, secure environment, EPIC tightly integrates atomistic modeling, test vehicles, process development, validation, and metrology feedback. Constraints that once surfaced late in development are identified and addressed early. The result is a potentially 2x faster path that benefits the entire ecosystem under one roof: Chipmakers gain earlier access to Applied’s R&D portfolio, faster learning cycles, and accelerated transfer of next‑generation technologies into high‑volume manufacturing. Ecosystem partners gain earlier access to advanced manufacturing technology and collaboration opportunities that expand what is possible through materials innovation. Academic institutions gain opportunities to strengthen the lab‑to‑fab pipeline and help develop future semiconductor talent. Building on decades of co‑development, we are reinventing the innovation pipeline with our partners across logic, memory, and advanced packaging to deliver the next leap in energy‑efficient AI. Accelerating Advanced Logic Logic remains the engine of AI compute. In the angstrom era, however, system‑level gains are increasingly constrained by power and energy. Extending AI performance now depends on architectures that deliver more performance per watt — accelerating the move to 3D devices such as gate‑all‑around (GAA) transistors, which boost density within a compact footprint while preserving power efficiency. Architectures that deliver more performance per watt are accelerating the move to 3D devices such as gate‑all‑around (GAA) transistors, and further out, complementary FETs (CFETs), which push density scaling even more.Applied Materials These architectural shifts are unfolding at unprecedented scale, with the logic roadmap already extending beyond first‑generation GAA toward more advanced designs. One key example is GAA with backside power delivery, which relocates thick power lines to the backside of the wafer, reducing resistive losses and freeing front‑side routing for tighter logic cell integration. Another example brings adjacent GAA PMOS and NMOS transistors closer together while inserting a dielectric isolation wall between them to minimize electrical interference. Further out, complementary FETs (CFETs) push density scaling even more by stacking PMOS and NMOS devices directly atop one another. While these architectures deliver compelling gains in performance per watt and logic density without relying solely on tighter lithography, they significantly raise integration complexity. Manufacturing a single GAA device today can involve more than 2,000 tightly interdependent process steps. At the same time, wiring stacks continue to grow taller and denser to connect these advanced logic devices. Modern leading‑edge GPUs now in development pack more than 300 billion transistors into an area little larger than a postage stamp, interconnected by over 2,000 miles of wiring. Modern leading‑edge GPUs now in development pack more than 300 billion transistors into an area little larger than a postage stamp, interconnected by over 2,000 miles of wiring.Applied Materials At this level of complexity, the process steps used to create these precise 3D devices and wiring stacks cannot be optimized independently. Design and process must evolve in lockstep, and materials innovation and fabrication methods must advance alongside device architecture. EPIC’s co‑innovation model is designed to accelerate exactly this convergence — enabling logic compute to continue advancing the frontiers of AI at the pace the roadmap demands. Powering the Memory Roadmap At the same time, the AI computing era is fundamentally reshaping how data is generated, moved, and processed — making memory technologies, especially DRAM, central to delivering the energy‑efficient performance AI systems require. As models grow larger and more data‑hungry, the DRAM roadmap is shifting toward architectures that deliver higher density, greater bandwidth, and faster access per watt. At the DRAM cell level, AI performance requirements are driving a transition from 6F² buried‑channel array transistors (BCAT) to more compact 4F², and beyond that, architectures that move past what 2D scaling alone can deliver. Applied Materials At the DRAM cell level, this shift is driving a transition from 6F² buried‑channel array transistors (BCAT) to more compact 4F² architectures, which orient the transistor vertically to boost density and reduce chip area. Looking beyond 4F², sustaining gains in performance per watt will require moving past what 2D scaling alone can deliver. The industry is therefore turning to 3D DRAM, stacking memory cells vertically to add capacity within a constrained footprint. As these structures grow taller and aspect ratios intensify, high-mobility materials engineering in three dimensions becomes increasingly critical to performance and reliability. Beyond the memory cell array, another powerful lever for DRAM scaling is shrinking the peripheral circuitry, which includes logic transistors and interconnect wiring. One emerging approach places select periphery functions beneath the DRAM array by bonding two wafers — one optimized for the DRAM cells and the other for CMOS logic — using multiple wiring layers. Beyond the memory cell array, another powerful lever for DRAM scaling is shrinking the peripheral circuitry, which includes logic transistors and interconnect wiring.Applied Materials In parallel, DRAM performance is being extended by leveraging logic‑proven enhancers in the memory periphery. These include mobility boosters such as embedded silicon germanium and stress films, along with wiring upgrades like improved low‑k dielectrics and advanced copper interconnects. Memory manufacturers are also transitioning periphery transistors from planar devices to FinFET architectures, following the logic roadmap to further improve I/O speed. These valuable inflections are central to EPIC’s mission — where they can be co-developed and rapidly validated for next‑generation memory systems. Driving System Scaling With Advanced Packaging As data movement becomes the dominant energy cost in AI systems, advanced packaging has emerged as a critical lever for improving system‑level efficiency—shortening interconnect distances, increasing bandwidth density, and reducing the power required to move data between logic and memory. The rise of 3D packages such as high‑bandwidth memory (HBM) underscores why advanced packaging is becoming central to the AI era.Applied Materials High‑bandwidth memory (HBM) marks a major inflection along this path. By stacking DRAM dies — scaling to 16 layers and beyond — and placing memory much closer to the processor, HBM enables rapid access to ever‑larger working datasets. This delivers step‑function gains in both bandwidth and energy efficiency. More broadly, the rise of 3D packages such as HBM underscores why advanced packaging is becoming central to the AI era. Packaging now addresses system‑level constraints that logic and memory device scaling alone can no longer overcome. It also enables a move away from monolithic systems‑on‑chip toward chiplet‑based architectures, as AI workloads increasingly demand flexible designs that combine logic, memory, and specialized accelerators optimized for specific tasks. A vital technology powering this roadmap is hybrid bonding. With interconnect pitches approaching those of on‑chip wiring, conventional bumps and microbumps run into fundamental limits in density, power, and signal integrity. Hybrid bonding removes these barriers by allowing dramatically higher interconnect and I/O density, supporting a broad range of chiplet architectures — from memory stacking to tighter compute‑memory integration. EPIC tackles high‑value advanced‑packaging challenges through early, parallel co‑innovation across materials, integration, and manufacturing.Applied Materials As bonded structures like HBM stacks grow larger and more complex, warpage control, die placement, stack alignment, and thermal management become first‑order challenges. EPIC tackles these and other high‑value advanced‑packaging challenges through early, parallel co‑innovation across materials, integration, and manufacturing. Bringing It All Together Across logic, memory, and advanced packaging, our industry faces an ambitious roadmap that promises significant gains in energy efficiency for AI systems. But realizing that potential demands breakthrough materials innovation at a time when feature sizes are shrinking, interfaces are multiplying, and process interdependencies are escalating. These challenges cannot be solved on 10–15‑year timelines under the traditional relay‑race model. We must break down silos, align earlier across the ecosystem, and parallelize learning to keep pace with AI’s demands. In the AI era, progress will be defined by the speed at which lightbulb moments turn into manufacturing and commercialization reality. The only viable path forward is a new innovation model — and EPIC is how we are driving it.
A guide to ten technological components — from THz communications and AI/ML to reconfigurable intelligent surfaces — poised to define 6G wireless networks. What Attendees will Learn Which frequencies 6G will use — Understand why THz bands (above 100 GHz) and the7–24 GHz range are under consideration, what challenges CMOS technology faces at sub-THz frequencies, and how new semiconductor approaches aim to close the output-power gap for future link budgets. How AI/ML and joint communications and sensing reshape the air interface — how auto encoder-based end-to-end learning can replace traditional signal-processing blocks, and how a single waveform may serve both data transmission and radar-like environmental sensing. What reconfigurable intelligent surfaces and photonics bring to the radio environment— Explore how programmable metamaterial panels can steer and shape electromagnetic waves, and how visible light communications and all-photonics networks extend capacity and lower latency. How ultra-massive MIMO, full-duplex, and new network topologies enable a true 3D“network of networks” — Understand how antenna arrays with vastly more elements, simultaneously transmit/receive on the same frequency, and non-terrestrial nodes converge to deliver ubiquitous, high-capacity 6G coverage. Download this free whitepaper now!
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.
Andrew Ng has serious street cred in artificial intelligence. He pioneered the use of graphics processing units (GPUs) to train deep learning models in the late 2000s with his students at Stanford University, cofounded Google Brain in 2011, and then served for three years as chief scientist for Baidu, where he helped build the Chinese tech giant’s AI group. So when he says he has identified the next big shift in artificial intelligence, people listen. And that’s what he told IEEE Spectrum in an exclusive Q&A. Ng’s current efforts are focused on his company Landing AI, which built a platform called LandingLens to help manufacturers improve visual inspection with computer vision. He has also become something of an evangelist for what he calls the data-centric AI movement, which he says can yield “small data” solutions to big issues in AI, including model efficiency, accuracy, and bias. Andrew Ng on... What’s next for really big models The career advice he didn’t listen to Defining the data-centric AI movement Synthetic data Why Landing AI asks its customers to do the work The great advances in deep learning over the past decade or so have been powered by ever-bigger models crunching ever-bigger amounts of data. Some people argue that that’s an unsustainable trajectory. Do you agree that it can’t go on that way? Andrew Ng: This is a big question. We’ve seen foundation models in NLP [natural language processing]. I’m excited about NLP models getting even bigger, and also about the potential of building foundation models in computer vision. I think there’s lots of signal to still be exploited in video: We have not been able to build foundation models yet for video because of compute bandwidth and the cost of processing video, as opposed to tokenized text. So I think that this engine of scaling up deep learning algorithms, which has been running for something like 15 years now, still has steam in it. Having said that, it only applies to certain problems, and there’s a set of other problems that need small data solutions. When you say you want a foundation model for computer vision, what do you mean by that? Ng: This is a term coined by Percy Liang and some of my friends at Stanford to refer to very large models, trained on very large data sets, that can be tuned for specific applications. For example, GPT-3 is an example of a foundation model [for NLP]. Foundation models offer a lot of promise as a new paradigm in developing machine learning applications, but also challenges in terms of making sure that they’re reasonably fair and free from bias, especially if many of us will be building on top of them. What needs to happen for someone to build a foundation model for video? Ng: I think there is a scalability problem. The compute power needed to process the large volume of images for video is significant, and I think that’s why foundation models have arisen first in NLP. Many researchers are working on this, and I think we’re seeing early signs of such models being developed in computer vision. But I’m confident that if a semiconductor maker gave us 10 times more processor power, we could easily find 10 times more video to build such models for vision. Having said that, a lot of what’s happened over the past decade is that deep learning has happened in consumer-facing companies that have large user bases, sometimes billions of users, and therefore very large data sets. While that paradigm of machine learning has driven a lot of economic value in consumer software, I find that that recipe of scale doesn’t work for other industries. Back to top It’s funny to hear you say that, because your early work was at a consumer-facing company with millions of users. Ng: Over a decade ago, when I proposed starting the Google Brain project to use Google’s compute infrastructure to build very large neural networks, it was a controversial step. One very senior person pulled me aside and warned me that starting Google Brain would be bad for my career. I think he felt that the action couldn’t just be in scaling up, and that I should instead focus on architecture innovation. “In many industries where giant data sets simply don’t exist, I think the focus has to shift from big data to good data. Having 50 thoughtfully engineered examples can be sufficient to explain to the neural network what you want it to learn.” —Andrew Ng, CEO & Founder, Landing AI I remember when my students and I published the first NeurIPS workshop paper advocating using CUDA, a platform for processing on GPUs, for deep learning—a different senior person in AI sat me down and said, “CUDA is really complicated to program. As a programming paradigm, this seems like too much work.” I did manage to convince him; the other person I did not convince. I expect they’re both convinced now. Ng: I think so, yes. Over the past year as I’ve been speaking to people about the data-centric AI movement, I’ve been getting flashbacks to when I was speaking to people about deep learning and scalability 10 or 15 years ago. In the past year, I’ve been getting the same mix of “there’s nothing new here” and “this seems like the wrong direction.” Back to top How do you define data-centric AI, and why do you consider it a movement? Ng: Data-centric AI is the discipline of systematically engineering the data needed to successfully build an AI system. For an AI system, you have to implement some algorithm, say a neural network, in code and then train it on your data set. The dominant paradigm over the last decade was to download the data set while you focus on improving the code. Thanks to that paradigm, over the last decade deep learning networks have improved significantly, to the point where for a lot of applications the code—the neural network architecture—is basically a solved problem. So for many practical applications, it’s now more productive to hold the neural network architecture fixed, and instead find ways to improve the data. When I started speaking about this, there were many practitioners who, completely appropriately, raised their hands and said, “Yes, we’ve been doing this for 20 years.” This is the time to take the things that some individuals have been doing intuitively and make it a systematic engineering discipline. The data-centric AI movement is much bigger than one company or group of researchers. My collaborators and I organized a data-centric AI workshop at NeurIPS, and I was really delighted at the number of authors and presenters that showed up. You often talk about companies or institutions that have only a small amount of data to work with. How can data-centric AI help them? Ng: You hear a lot about vision systems built with millions of images—I once built a face recognition system using 350 million images. Architectures built for hundreds of millions of images don’t work with only 50 images. But it turns out, if you have 50 really good examples, you can build something valuable, like a defect-inspection system. In many industries where giant data sets simply don’t exist, I think the focus has to shift from big data to good data. Having 50 thoughtfully engineered examples can be sufficient to explain to the neural network what you want it to learn. When you talk about training a model with just 50 images, does that really mean you’re taking an existing model that was trained on a very large data set and fine-tuning it? Or do you mean a brand new model that’s designed to learn only from that small data set? Ng: Let me describe what Landing AI does. When doing visual inspection for manufacturers, we often use our own flavor of RetinaNet. It is a pretrained model. Having said that, the pretraining is a small piece of the puzzle. What’s a bigger piece of the puzzle is providing tools that enable the manufacturer to pick the right set of images [to use for fine-tuning] and label them in a consistent way. There’s a very practical problem we’ve seen spanning vision, NLP, and speech, where even human annotators don’t agree on the appropriate label. For big data applications, the common response has been: If the data is noisy, let’s just get a lot of data and the algorithm will average over it. But if you can develop tools that flag where the data’s inconsistent and give you a very targeted way to improve the consistency of the data, that turns out to be a more efficient way to get a high-performing system. “Collecting more data often helps, but if you try to collect more data for everything, that can be a very expensive activity.” —Andrew Ng For example, if you have 10,000 images where 30 images are of one class, and those 30 images are labeled inconsistently, one of the things we do is build tools to draw your attention to the subset of data that’s inconsistent. So you can very quickly relabel those images to be more consistent, and this leads to improvement in performance. Could this focus on high-quality data help with bias in data sets? If you’re able to curate the data more before training? Ng: Very much so. Many researchers have pointed out that biased data is one factor among many leading to biased systems. There have been many thoughtful efforts to engineer the data. At the NeurIPS workshop, Olga Russakovsky gave a really nice talk on this. At the main NeurIPS conference, I also really enjoyed Mary Gray’s presentation, which touched on how data-centric AI is one piece of the solution, but not the entire solution. New tools like Datasheets for Datasets also seem like an important piece of the puzzle. One of the powerful tools that data-centric AI gives us is the ability to engineer a subset of the data. Imagine training a machine-learning system and finding that its performance is okay for most of the data set, but its performance is biased for just a subset of the data. If you try to change the whole neural network architecture to improve the performance on just that subset, it’s quite difficult. But if you can engineer a subset of the data you can address the problem in a much more targeted way. When you talk about engineering the data, what do you mean exactly? Ng: In AI, data cleaning is important, but the way the data has been cleaned has often been in very manual ways. In computer vision, someone may visualize images through a Jupyter notebook and maybe spot the problem, and maybe fix it. But I’m excited about tools that allow you to have a very large data set, tools that draw your attention quickly and efficiently to the subset of data where, say, the labels are noisy. Or to quickly bring your attention to the one class among 100 classes where it would benefit you to collect more data. Collecting more data often helps, but if you try to collect more data for everything, that can be a very expensive activity. For example, I once figured out that a speech-recognition system was performing poorly when there was car noise in the background. Knowing that allowed me to collect more data with car noise in the background, rather than trying to collect more data for everything, which would have been expensive and slow. Back to top What about using synthetic data, is that often a good solution? Ng: I think synthetic data is an important tool in the tool chest of data-centric AI. At the NeurIPS workshop, Anima Anandkumar gave a great talk that touched on synthetic data. I think there are important uses of synthetic data that go beyond just being a preprocessing step for increasing the data set for a learning algorithm. I’d love to see more tools to let developers use synthetic data generation as part of the closed loop of iterative machine learning development. Do you mean that synthetic data would allow you to try the model on more data sets? Ng: Not really. Here’s an example. Let’s say you’re trying to detect defects in a smartphone casing. There are many different types of defects on smartphones. It could be a scratch, a dent, pit marks, discoloration of the material, other types of blemishes. If you train the model and then find through error analysis that it’s doing well overall but it’s performing poorly on pit marks, then synthetic data generation allows you to address the problem in a more targeted way. You could generate more data just for the pit-mark category. “In the consumer software Internet, we could train a handful of machine-learning models to serve a billion users. In manufacturing, you might have 10,000 manufacturers building 10,000 custom AI models.” —Andrew Ng Synthetic data generation is a very powerful tool, but there are many simpler tools that I will often try first. Such as data augmentation, improving labeling consistency, or just asking a factory to collect more data. Back to top To make these issues more concrete, can you walk me through an example? When a company approaches Landing AI and says it has a problem with visual inspection, how do you onboard them and work toward deployment? Ng: When a customer approaches us we usually have a conversation about their inspection problem and look at a few images to verify that the problem is feasible with computer vision. Assuming it is, we ask them to upload the data to the LandingLens platform. We often advise them on the methodology of data-centric AI and help them label the data. One of the foci of Landing AI is to empower manufacturing companies to do the machine learning work themselves. A lot of our work is making sure the software is fast and easy to use. Through the iterative process of machine learning development, we advise customers on things like how to train models on the platform, when and how to improve the labeling of data so the performance of the model improves. Our training and software supports them all the way through deploying the trained model to an edge device in the factory. How do you deal with changing needs? If products change or lighting conditions change in the factory, can the model keep up? Ng: It varies by manufacturer. There is data drift in many contexts. But there are some manufacturers that have been running the same manufacturing line for 20 years now with few changes, so they don’t expect changes in the next five years. Those stable environments make things easier. For other manufacturers, we provide tools to flag when there’s a significant data-drift issue. I find it really important to empower manufacturing customers to correct data, retrain, and update the model. Because if something changes and it’s 3 a.m. in the United States, I want them to be able to adapt their learning algorithm right away to maintain operations. In the consumer software Internet, we could train a handful of machine-learning models to serve a billion users. In manufacturing, you might have 10,000 manufacturers building 10,000 custom AI models. The challenge is, how do you do that without Landing AI having to hire 10,000 machine learning specialists? So you’re saying that to make it scale, you have to empower customers to do a lot of the training and other work. Ng: Yes, exactly! This is an industry-wide problem in AI, not just in manufacturing. Look at health care. Every hospital has its own slightly different format for electronic health records. How can every hospital train its own custom AI model? Expecting every hospital’s IT personnel to invent new neural-network architectures is unrealistic. The only way out of this dilemma is to build tools that empower the customers to build their own models by giving them tools to engineer the data and express their domain knowledge. That’s what Landing AI is executing in computer vision, and the field of AI needs other teams to execute this in other domains. Is there anything else you think it’s important for people to understand about the work you’re doing or the data-centric AI movement? Ng: In the last decade, the biggest shift in AI was a shift to deep learning. I think it’s quite possible that in this decade the biggest shift will be to data-centric AI. With the maturity of today’s neural network architectures, I think for a lot of the practical applications the bottleneck will be whether we can efficiently get the data we need to develop systems that work well. The data-centric AI movement has tremendous energy and momentum across the whole community. I hope more researchers and developers will jump in and work on it. Back to top This article appears in the April 2022 print issue as “Andrew Ng, AI Minimalist.”