Ignore the confusion or the complexity?
Vasistha and Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography
“They’re both amazing machines and scary machines. There’s an enormous amount of complexity with them. There’s an enormous number of things that can potentially go wrong. It’s something that you don’t necessarily sleep well at night, just having the machine on your floor.” from The Extreme Physics Pushing Moore’s Law to the Next Level
In the introduction to Yoga-Vasistha, it says:
“The Yoga Vasistha is the greatest help to the spiritual awakening and the direct experience of the Truth. This is certain.
If this is what you want, you are welcome to YogaVasistha.
The text abounds in repetitions which are, however, not repetitious. If you do not like (or need) repetitions, then read just this one verse:
This world-appearance is a confusion: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it’s better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it. (I.3.2)
This verse appears several times in the scripture and it seems to be the very essence of the teaching. If that is not quite clear to you now, read the scripture. The numerous ways in which this truth is revealed will help open your mind.”
I have been thinking recently about the one verse:
This world-appearance is a confusion: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it’s better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it.
What if the words “a confusion” were replaced with the word “complex”?
This world-appearance is complex: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it’s better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it.
Does it still make sense? Does it make more sense? Should this blog be called “Ignore the Complexity”?
Let’s move on.
This video from 2019 on ASML’s Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography (EUV) made me scratch my head and wonder.
The technology is incredibly complex but could also be considered confusing.
ASML’s technology sketches nanoscale patterns onto semiconductor chips that go into electronic devices like smart phones, which in the hands of users are quite simple to use, but undoubtedly complex and could also be confusing.
In many ways complex and confused go hand in hand which is why I am comfortable proposing that you simultaneously “ignore the confusion AND the complexity”. I wonder what Vasistha would say about that?
Anyway, the other thing that struck me about this video, is the question, what is frontier technology? My colleague and I are starting a VC fund called Future Frontier Capital to invest in early stage (pre seed), frontier technologies. We have been tossing around ideas about what exactly is “frontier” technology and more importantly what factors do we use to determine when a technology is a frontier technology.
I find it helpful to use real world examples:
EUV was clearly pre-frontier in 1986 when the technology was first dreamed up. Early patents were filed and have long since been abandoned in the mid-1990’s by the Department of Energy and National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia LLC.
According to Wikipedia, the first prototype wasn’t developed until 2006 and was able to produce 1 wafer every 23 hours. Then in 2018, ASML’s EUV machine reached critical mass. As of 2022, the machine can produce 200 wafers per hour.
So when did EUV turn from pre-frontier technology to frontier technology?
Before I attempt to answer that question, I did a little internet research.
According to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO):
“The field of frontier technologies is rapidly evolving and although there is no agreed definition for this concept. Frontier technologies share some common features. They operate at the intersection of radical scientific developments and real-world implementation. Furthermore, they are changing the way we communicate, solve problems, provide goods and services, create and do business. Frontier technologies could be described as advanced technology that can address global issues.”
“Frontier technologies include:
digital technologies, such as the Internet of things (IoT), blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), big data and cloud computing
physical technologies, such as autonomous driving, 3D printing and hardware innovations and
biological technologies such as genetic engineering, human augmentation and the brain-computer-interface.”
Although this is helpful, I think it’s a bit too narrow. That said, at a minimum, I believe EUV does satisfy the WIPO definition of “operating at the intersection of radical scientific developments and real-world implementation” and “advanced technology that can address global issues”.
For our own VC fund we’ve created a more specific framework including the following criteria that provide a broader definition of frontier technology:
Technology at the forefront of innovation.
Passed through research and development (R&D) phase.
Currently in Prototype OR MVP phase.
Customer, market need identified.
Not yet mass marketed nor adopted by the mainstream.
Outpacing regulations.
So using this framework, back to the earlier question, when did EUV turn from pre-frontier technology to frontier technology?
I argue that EUV was at the forefront of innovation back in the 1980’s and remains at the forefront of innovation. Other than ASML to my knowledge (and research) no other organizations are selling EUV products (although clearly, Chinese semiconductor companies are working on it)
It appears that EUV passed through the R&D phase around 2006 when the early prototypes were created.
The technology is beyond the Prototype OR MVP phase which it surpassed 15 years ago.
There is certainly a customer/market need identified.
EUV is currently mass marketed to the mainstream (Intel, TSMC), and likely has been since around 2018.
The technology was likely outpacing semiconductor regulations.
Thus, EUV likely transitioned from pre-frontier to frontier tech around 2006 (the time of its early prototype).
It could have been an interesting frontier technology investment (back in 2006). Looking at the patent publications in this area (a backward looking indicator) reveals that activity started to pick up in 2014, just prior to the EUV backlog experienced in 2016.
https://www.lens.org/
However, considering the complexity of the technology, the capital expenditures involved, the long time to development, and the truly cutting edge nature of the technology (going from 193 nanometer to 13.5 nanometer lithography) would have likely resulted in our fund passing on this opportunity if it was presented back in 2003-2005.
Had one made an investment at the pre seed stage in ASML, unless you were able to continue to hold your pro-rata stake from pre-seed to IPO it would be impossible to not be diluted down to nearly nothing.
Today’s equivalent could be something related to cold-fusion or quantum computing. Although these could be considered frontier technology companies, due to the issues outlined above, it is unlikely that we would participate in a pre seed round.
I will continue to think about investments and whether or not they qualify as frontier technology in future posts while ignoring the complexity (and the confusion).
Thanks for reading!