A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.

EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed rules, and more than 4,000 supporters added their voices—an extraordinary response for a technical, fast-moving rulemaking. We comprised more than one-third of the 11,442 comments submitted. The message is unmistakable: the public wants a meaningful way to challenge bad patents, and the USPTO should not take that away.

The Public Doesn’t Want To Bury Patent Challenges

These thousands of submissions do more than express frustration. They demonstrate overwhelming public interest in preserving inter partes review (IPR), and undermine any broad claim that the USPTO’s proposal reflects public sentiment. 

Comments opposing the rulemaking include many small business owners who have been wrongly accused of patent infringement, by both patent trolls and patent-abusing competitors. They also include computer science experts, law professors, and everyday technology users who are simply tired of patent extortion—abusive assertions of low-quality patents—and the harm it inflicts on their work, their lives, and the broader U.S. economy. 

The USPTO exists to serve the public. The volume and clarity of this response make that expectation impossible to ignore.

EFF’s Comment To USPTO

In our filing, we explained that the proposed rules would make it significantly harder for the public to challenge weak patents. That undercuts the very purpose of IPR. The proposed rules would pressure defendants to give up core legal defenses, allow early or incomplete decisions to block all future challenges, and create new opportunities for patent owners to game timing and shut down PTAB review entirely.

Congress created IPR to allow the Patent Office to correct its own mistakes in a fair, fast, expert forum. These changes would take the system backward. 

A Broad Coalition Supports IPR

A wide range of groups told the USPTO the same thing: don’t cut off access to IPR.

Open Source and Developer Communities 

The Linux Foundation submitted comments and warned that the proposed rules “would effectively remove IPRs as a viable mechanism for challenges to patent validity,” harming open-source developers and the users that rely on them. Github wrote that the USPTO proposal would increase “litigation risk and costs for developers, startups, and open source projects.” And dozens of individual software developers described how bad patents have burdened their work. 

Patent Law Scholars

A group of 22 patent law professors from universities across the country said the proposed rule changes “would violate the law, increase the cost of innovation, and harm the quality of patents.” 

Patient Advocates

Patients for Affordable Drugs warned in their filing that IPR is critical for invalidating wrongly granted pharmaceutical patents. When such patents are invalidated, studies have shown “cardiovascular medications have fallen 97% in price, cancer drugs dropping 80-98%, and treatments for opioid addiction becom[e] 50% more affordable.” In addition, “these cases involved patents that had evaded meaningful scrutiny in district court.” 

Small Businesses 

Hundreds of small businesses weighed in with a consistent message: these proposed rules would hit them hardest. Owners and engineers described being targeted with vague or overbroad patents they cannot afford to litigate in court, explaining that IPR is often the only realistic way for a small firm to defend itself. The proposed rules would leave them with an impossible choice—pay a patent troll, or spend money they don’t have fighting in federal court. 

What Happens Next

The USPTO now has thousands of comments to review. It should listen. Public participation must be more than a box-checking exercise. It is central to how administrative rulemaking is supposed to work.

Congress created IPR so the public could help correct bad patents without spending millions of dollars in federal court. People across technical, academic, and patient-advocacy communities just reminded the agency why that matters. 

We hope the USPTO reconsiders these proposed rules. Whatever happens, EFF will remain engaged and continue fighting to preserve  the public’s ability to challenge bad patents. 

I have long maintained that smart contracts are a dumb idea: that a human process is actually a security feature.

Here’s some interesting research on training AIs to automatically exploit smart contracts:

AI models are increasingly good at cyber tasks, as we’ve written about before. But what is the economic impact of these capabilities? In a recent MATS and Anthropic Fellows project, our scholars investigated this question by evaluating AI agents’ ability to exploit smart contracts on Smart CONtracts Exploitation benchmark (SCONE-bench)­a new benchmark they built comprising 405 contracts that were actually exploited between 2020 and 2025. On contracts exploited after the latest knowledge cutoffs (June 2025 for Opus 4.5 and March 2025 for other models), Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and GPT-5 developed exploits collectively worth $4.6 million, establishing a concrete lower bound for the economic harm these capabilities could enable. Going beyond retrospective analysis, we evaluated both Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5 in simulation against 2,849 recently deployed contracts without any known vulnerabilities. Both agents uncovered two novel zero-day vulnerabilities and produced exploits worth $3,694, with GPT-5 doing so at an API cost of $3,476. This demonstrates as a proof-of-concept that profitable, real-world autonomous exploitation is technically feasible, a finding that underscores the need for proactive adoption of AI for defense...

Antibody treatments for cancer and other diseases are typically delivered intravenously, because of the large volumes that are needed per dose. This means the patient has to go to a hospital for every treatment, where they may spend hours receiving the infusion.

MIT engineers have now taken a major step toward reformulating antibodies so that they can be injected using a standard syringe. The researchers found a way to create solid particles of highly concentrated antibodies, suspended in a solution. These particles carry enough antibodies that only about 2 milliliters of solution would be needed per dose.

This advance could make it much easier for patients to receive antibody treatments, and could make treatment more accessible for patients who have difficulty coming into a hospital, including older people.

“As the global population ages, making the treatment process more convenient and accessible for those populations is something that needs to be addressed,” says Talia Zheng, an MIT graduate student who is the lead author of the new study.

Patrick Doyle, the Robert T. Haslam Professor of Chemical Engineering, is the senior author of the open-access paper, which appears in Advanced Materials. MIT graduate student Lucas Attia and Janet Teng ’25 are also authors of the study.

Highly concentrated antibodies

Therapeutic antibody drugs such as rituximab, which is used to treat some cancers, consist of antibodies suspended in a water-based solution. In addition to cancers, antibodies are also used to treat infectious diseases, as well as autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis.

Because the antibody solutions are formulated at low concentrations (10 to 30 milligrams of antibody per milliliter of solution), patients need to be given at least 100 milliliters per dose, which is much too large to be injected using a standard syringe. To decrease this volume to the point where it could be injected, the antibody concentration would need to be at least 300 milligrams per milliliter, but that would make the solution much too thick to be injected.

“You can’t concentrate existing formulations to these concentrations,” Doyle says. “They’ll be very viscous and will exceed the force threshold of what you can inject into a patient.”

In 2023, Doyle’s lab developed a way to generated highly concentrated antibody formulations by encapsulating them into hydrogel particles. However, that process requires centrifugation, a step that would be difficult to scale up for manufacturing.

In their new study, the researchers took a different approach that allows them to create droplets suspended in an emulsion, similar to oil and vinegar. In this case, droplets containing antibodies dissolved in a watery solution are suspended in an organic solvent called pentanol.

These droplets can then be dehydrated, leaving behind highly concentrated solid antibodies — about 360 milligrams of antibody per milliliter of solution. These particles also include a small amount of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a polymer that helps stabilize the particles.

Once these solid particles form, the organic solvent surrounding them is removed and replaced with an aqueous solution (water containing dissolved salts and small amount of stabilizing polymer), similar to the solution now used to infuse therapeutic antibodies.

This assembly process can be done rapidly using a microfluidic setup and does not require centrifugation, which should allow it to be scaled up much more easily using emulsification devices compliant with GMP (good manufacturing practice) regulations.

“Our first approach was a bit brute force, and when we were developing this new approach, we said to it’s got to be simple if it’s going to be better and scalable,” Doyle says.

Injectable particles

The researchers showed that they could control the size of the particles — from about 60 to 200 microns in diameter — by changing the flow rate of the solutions that make up the droplets.

Using particles 100 microns in diameter, they tested the injectability of the solution using a mechanical force tester. Those studies showed that the force needed to push the plunger of a syringe containing the particle solution was less than 20 newtons.

“That is less than half of the maximum acceptable force that people usually try to aim for, so it’s very injectable,” Zheng says.

Using a 2-milliliter syringe, a typical size for subcutaneous injections, more than 700 milligrams of the target antibody could be given at once — enough for most therapeutic applications. The researchers also showed that their formulations remained stable under refrigeration for at least four months.

The researchers now plan to test their antibody particles for therapeutic applications in animal models. They are also working on scaling up the manufacturing process, so they can make enough for large-scale testing.

The research was funded by the MIT Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Lisa Su ’90, SM ’91, PhD ’94, a leading executive in the semiconductor industry and head of the company Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will deliver the address at the OneMIT Commencement Ceremony on Thursday, May 28.

As chair and CEO of AMD, Su has transformed the company, which is now a global leader in high-performance and AI computing. In addition to designing industry-leading CPUs and the specialized GPUs that enable AI applications, AMD technology is the foundation of many of the world’s most advanced supercomputers and high-performance computing systems. The company continues to work on next-generation hardware and open software that will accelerate the adoption of AI, which Su has described as the most transformational technology of our time.

Su has maintained a close relationship with MIT since her days as a student. She was the speaker at the 2017 doctoral hooding ceremony, and in 2018 she established the Lisa Su Fellowship Fund. She served on the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Visiting Committee for 10 years. In 2022, Building 12, which houses MIT.nano, was named in her honor.

“Long before she led the spectacular turnaround of AMD and lent her name to MIT’s world-class nano facility, Lisa Su was an MIT student who inspired and mentored her classmates. During her PhD studies, she created instructions that guided generations of student researchers in using some of the Institute’s most advanced equipment,” says MIT President Sally Kornbluth. “Lisa is renowned for her intellectual rigor, boldness, and originality, and we're absolutely thrilled that she has agreed to deliver the Commencement address to our graduates this year.”

“MIT has always held a special place in my life and career, and I’m thrilled to accept the invitation to speak at Commencement,” Su says. “The Class of 2026 will be graduating at an exciting time, as AI transforms our world and expands what is possible, and I look forward to celebrating them as they prepare to share their skills and ideas with the world.”

Born in Taiwan, Su grew up in Queens, New York. After earning bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in electrical engineering from MIT, she worked at Texas Instruments, IBM, and Freescale Semiconductor, then joined AMD in 2012. In her current position, Su is a member of a small group: Only about 10 percent of Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs.

“Lisa Su has embraced MIT’s ‘mind and hand’ motto over the course of her career, first with important scientific discoveries in semiconductor design and engineering, and later as an extraordinary business executive leading the delivery of innovative products that play an essential role in the modern digital economy. We are very fortunate that she has agreed to share some of the lessons learned on her journey,” says Jim Poterba, the Mitsui Professor of Economics and chair of the Commencement Committee.

“Dr. Lisa Su is an inspiration to the MIT community for the way she combines exceptional engineering and leadership with meaningful, far-reaching impact in computing and countless other fields,” senior class president Heba Hussein says. “Her journey embodies the spirit of MIT, and the Class of 2026 is incredibly excited to welcome her at Commencement as we step into the world carrying the same MIT values!”

“I am excited to hear from someone that I know we can all learn something from. I think all MIT students respect the ‘lock-in’ that must have been required to achieve all that she has, with AMD and beyond,” says Alice Hall, president of the Undergraduate Association.

“Dr. Su is a world leader in manufacturing technologies and personifies MIT's values. As an alum, she has shared many experiences with current students, and I look forward to hearing about how these experiences shaped her successful career,” says Teddy Warner, president of the Graduate Student Council.

Su has received many honors including two named for MIT alumni: the Global Semiconductor Association’s Dr. Morris Chang Exemplary Leadership Award and the Robert N. Noyce Medal. She was named TIME’s 2024 CEO of the Year and has been recognized as one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People and Fortune's Most Powerful People in Business. She received the 2024 Bower Award for Business Leadership and the Distinguished Leadership Award from the Committee for Economic Development (CED). Su is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Su joins notable recent MIT Commencement speakers including science communicator Hank Green (2025); inventor and entrepreneur Noubar Afeyan (2024); YouTuber and inventor Mark Rober (2023); Director-General of the World Trade Organization Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (2022); lawyer and social justice activist Bryan Stevenson (2021); and retired U.S. Navy four-star admiral William McRaven (2020). 

In announcing the U.S. had seized an oil tanker off Venezuela on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said of its crude, “We’ll keep it, I guess.”

The young people argued in a petition filed with the Montana Supreme Court that lawmakers are flouting a 2024 ruling that determined state energy laws infringed on their constitutional rights.

Large power consumers will need 225 gigawatts of electricity over the next five years, testing the state's abililty to quickly add generation.

The effects were stronger among children living in cities, poorer households and places with less access to clean water, new research finds.

Property insurers want to bar trees and shrubs next to many buildings. The Los Angeles Fire Department says that's unreasonable.

The narrow draft regulations set an August timeline for businesses to report carbon emissions.

Revenues from the program have fallen flat in the last few auctions, threatening to leave lawmakers with a $1.8 billion shortfall next year.

The “environmental omnibus” will cut back rules on pollution reporting and waste management.

Facing American opposition, the EU has opted to scale back rules intended to ensure companies adhere to ESG standards.

Capturing carbon dioxide from industrial plants is an important strategy in the efforts to reduce the impact of global climate change. It’s used in many industries, including the production of petrochemicals, cement, and fertilizers.

MIT chemical engineers have now discovered a simple way to make carbon capture more efficient and affordable, by adding a common chemical compound to capture solutions. The innovation could cut costs significantly and enable the technology to run on waste heat or even sunlight, instead of energy-intensive heating.

Their new approach uses a chemical called tris — short for tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane — to stabilize the pH of the solution used to capture CO2, allowing the system to absorb more of the gas at relatively low temperature. The system can release CO2 at just 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit) — a dramatic improvement over conventional methods, which require temperatures exceeding 120 C to release captured carbon.

“It’s something that could be implemented almost immediately in fairly standard types of equipment,” says T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering Practice at MIT and the senior author of the study.

Youhong (Nancy) Guo, a recent MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor of applied physical sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is the lead author of the paper, which appears today in Nature Chemical Engineering.

More efficient capture

Using current technologies, around 0.1 percent of global carbon emissions is captured and either stored underground or converted into other products.

The most widely used carbon-capture method involves running waste gases through a solution that contains chemical compounds called amines. These solutions have a high pH, which allows them to absorb CO2, an acidic gas. In addition to traditional amines, basic compounds called carbonates, which are inexpensive and readily available, can also capture acidic CO2 gas. However, as CO2 is absorbed, the pH of the solution drops quickly, limiting the CO2 uptake capacity.

The most energy-intensive step comes once the CO2 is absorbed, because both amine and carbonate solutions must be heated to above 120 C to release the captured carbon. This regeneration step consumes enormous amounts of energy.

To make carbon capture by carbonates more efficient, the MIT team added tris into a potassium carbonate solution. This chemical, commonly used in lab experiments and found in some cosmetics and the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, acts as a pH buffer — a solution that helps prevent the pH from changing.

When added to a carbonate solution, positively charged tris balances the negative charge of the bicarbonate ions formed when CO2 is absorbed. This stabilizes the pH, allowing the solution to absorb triple the amount of CO2.

As another advantage, tris is highly sensitive to temperature changes. When the solution full of CO2 is heated just slightly, to about 60 C, tris quickly releases protons, causing the pH to drop and the captured CO2 to bubble out.

“At room temperature, the solution can absorb more CO2, and with mild heating it can release the CO2. There is an instant pH change when we heat up the solution a little bit,” Guo says.

“Potassium carbonate is one of the holy grail solvents for carbon capture due to its high chemical stability, low cost, and negligible emissions,” says David Heldebrant, an associate professor of chemical engineering and bioengineering at Washington State University, who was not involved in the study. “I believe this electrochemical tris-promoted potassium carbonate solvent system has a lot of promise for the field of carbon capture, especially since the researchers have been able to improve on the energetics by regenerating at atmospheric pressure, as compared to vacuum-assisted regeneration, which is normally done.”

A simple swap

To demonstrate their approach, the researchers built a continuous-flow reactor for carbon capture. First, gases containing CO2 are bubbled through a reservoir containing carbonate and tris, which absorbs the CO2. That solution then is pumped into a CO2 regeneration module, which is heated to about 60 C to release a pure stream of CO2.

Once the CO2 is released, the carbonate solution is cooled and returned to the reservoir for another round of CO2 absorption and regeneration.

Because the system can operate at relatively low temperatures, there is more flexibility in where the energy could come from, such as solar panels, electricity, or waste heat already generated by industrial plants.

Swapping in carbonate-tris solutions to replace conventional amines should be straightforward for industrial facilities, the researchers say. “One of the nice things about this is its simplicity, in terms of overall design. It’s a drop-in approach that allows you to readily change over from one kind of solution to another,” Hatton says.

When carbon is captured from industrial plants, some of it can be diverted into the manufacture of other useful products, but most of it will likely end up being stored in underground geological formations, Hatton says.

“You can only use a small fraction of the captured CO2 for producing chemicals before you saturate the market,” he says.

Guo is now exploring whether other additives could make the carbon capture process even more efficient by speeding up CO2 absorption rates.

The authors acknowledge Eni S.p.A. for the fruitful discussions under the MIT–Eni research framework agreement.

This blog also appears in our Age Verification Resource Hub: our one-stop shop for users seeking to understand what age-gating laws actually do, what’s at stake, how to protect yourself, and why EFF opposes all forms of age verification mandates. Head to EFF.org/Age to explore our resources and join us in the fight for a free, open, private, and yes—safe—internet.

One of the most common refrains we hear from age verification proponents is that online ID checks are nothing new. After all, you show your ID at bars and liquor stores all the time, right? And it’s true that many places age-restrict access in-person to various goods and services, such as tobacco, alcohol, firearms, lottery tickets, and even tattoos and body piercings.

But this comparison falls apart under scrutiny. There are fundamental differences between flashing your ID to a bartender and uploading government documents or biometric data to websites and third-party verification companies. Online age-gating is more invasive, affects far more people, and poses serious risks to privacy, security, and free speech that simply don't exist when you buy a six-pack at the corner store.

Online age verification burdens many more people.

Online age restrictions are imposed on many, many more users than in-person ID checks. Because of the sheer scale of the internet, regulations affecting online content sweep in an enormous number of adults and youth alike, forcing them to disclose sensitive personal data just to access lawful speech, information, and services. 

Additionally, age restrictions in the physical world affect only a limited number of transactions: those involving a narrow set of age-restricted products or services. Typically this entails a bounded interaction about one specific purchase.

Online age verification laws, on the other hand, target a broad range of internet activities and general purpose platforms and services, including social media sites and app stores. And these laws don’t just wall off specific content deemed harmful to minors (like a bookstore would); they age-gate access to websites wholesale. This is akin to requiring ID every time a customer walks into a convenience store, regardless of whether they want to buy candy or alcohol.

There are significant privacy and security risks that don’t exist offline.

In offline, in-person scenarios, a customer typically provides their physical ID to a cashier or clerk directly. Oftentimes, customers need only flash their ID for a quick visual check, and no personal information is uploaded to the internet, transferred to a third-party vendor, or stored. Online age-gating, on the other hand, forces users to upload—not just momentarily display—sensitive personal information to a website in order to gain access to age-restricted content. 

This creates a cascade of privacy and security problems that don’t exist in the physical world. Once sensitive information like a government-issued ID is uploaded to a website or third-party service, there is no guarantee it will be handled securely. You have no direct control over who receives and stores your personal data, where it is sent, or how it may be accessed, used, or leaked outside the immediate verification process. 

Data submitted online rarely just stays between you and one other party. All online data is transmitted through a host of third-party intermediaries, and almost all websites and services also host a network of dozens of private, third-party trackers managed by data brokers, advertisers, and other companies that are constantly collecting data about your browsing activity. The data is shared with or sold to additional third parties and used to target behavioral advertisements. Age verification tools also often rely on third parties just to complete a transaction: a single instance of ID verification might involve two or three different third-party partners, and age estimation services often work directly with data brokers to offer a complete product. Users’ personal identifying data then circulates among these partners. 

All of this increases the likelihood that your data will leak or be misused. Unfortunately, data breaches are an endemic part of modern life, and the sensitive, often immutable, personal data required for age verification is just as susceptible to being breached as any other online data. Age verification companies can be—and already have been—hacked. Once that personal data gets into the wrong hands, victims are vulnerable to targeted attacks both online and off, including fraud and identity theft.

Troublingly, many age verification laws don’t even protect user security by providing a private right of action to sue a company if personal data is breached or misused. This leaves you without a direct remedy should something bad happen. 

Some proponents claim that age estimation is a privacy-preserving alternative to ID-based verification. But age estimation tools still require biometric data collection, often demanding users submit a photo or video of their face to access a site. And again, once submitted, there’s no way for you to verify how that data is processed or stored. Requiring face scans also normalizes pervasive biometric surveillance and creates infrastructure that could easily be repurposed for more invasive tracking. Once we’ve accepted that accessing lawful speech requires submitting our faces for scanning, we’ve crossed a threshold that’s difficult to walk back.

Online age verification creates even bigger barriers to access.

Online age gates create more substantial access barriers than in-person ID checks do. For those concerned about privacy and security, there is no online analog to a quick visual check of your physical ID. Users may be justifiably discouraged from accessing age-gated websites if doing so means uploading personal data and creating a potentially lasting record of their visit to that site.

Given these risks, age verification also imposes barriers to remaining anonymous that don't typically exist in-person. Anonymity can be essential for those wishing to access sensitive, personal, or stigmatized content online. And users have a right to anonymity, which is “an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” Even if a law requires data deletion, users must still be confident that every website and online service with access to their data will, in fact, delete it—something that is in no way guaranteed.

In-person ID checks are additionally less likely to wrongfully exclude people due to errors. Online systems that rely on facial scans are often incorrect, especially when applied to users near the legal age of adulthood. These tools are also less accurate for people with Black, Asian, Indigenous, and Southeast Asian backgrounds, for users with disabilities, and for transgender individuals. This leads to discriminatory outcomes and exacerbates harm to already marginalized communities. And while in-person shoppers can speak with a store clerk if issues arise, these online systems often rely on AI models, leaving users who are incorrectly flagged as minors with little recourse to challenge the decision.

In-person interactions may also be less burdensome for adults who don’t have up-to-date ID. An older adult who forgets their ID at home or lacks current identification is not likely to face the same difficulty accessing material in a physical store, since there are usually distinguishing physical differences between young adults and those older than 35. A visual check is often enough. This matters, as a significant portion of the U.S. population does not have access to up-to-date government-issued IDs. This disproportionately affects Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and individuals with disabilities, who are less likely to possess the necessary identification.

We’re talking about First Amendment-protected speech.

It's important not to lose sight of what’s at stake here. The good or service age gated by these laws isn’t alcohol or cigarettes—it’s First Amendment-protected speech. Whether the target is social media platforms or any other online forum for expression, age verification blocks access to constitutionally-protected content. 

Access to many of these online services is also necessary to participate in the modern economy. While those without ID may function just fine without being able to purchase luxury products like alcohol or tobacco, requiring ID to participate in basic communication technology significantly hinders people’s ability to engage in economic and social life.

This is why it’s wrong to claim online age verification is equivalent to showing ID at a bar or store. This argument handwaves away genuine harms to privacy and security, dismisses barriers to access that will lock millions out of online spaces, and ignores how these systems threaten free expression. Ignoring these threats won’t protect children, but it will compromise our rights and safety.

MIT researchers have developed a new fabrication method that could enable the production of more energy efficient electronics by stacking multiple functional components on top of one existing circuit.

In traditional circuits, logic devices that perform computation, like transistors, and memory devices that store data are built as separate components, forcing data to travel back and forth between them, which wastes energy.

This new electronics integration platform allows scientists to fabricate transistors and memory devices in one compact stack on a semiconductor chip. This eliminates much of that wasted energy while boosting the speed of computation.

Key to this advance is a newly developed material with unique properties and a more precise fabrication approach that reduces the number of defects in the material. This allows the researchers to make extremely tiny transistors with built-in memory that can perform faster than state-of-the-art devices while consuming less electricity than similar transistors.

By improving the energy efficiency of electronic devices, this new approach could help reduce the burgeoning electricity consumption of computation, especially for demanding applications like generative AI, deep learning, and computer vision tasks.

“We have to minimize the amount of energy we use for AI and other data-centric computation in the future because it is simply not sustainable. We will need new technology like this integration platform to continue that progress,” says Yanjie Shao, an MIT postdoc and lead author of two papers on these new transistors.

The new technique is described in two papers (one invited) that were presented at the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting. Shao is joined on the papers by senior authors Jesús del Alamo, the Donner Professor of Engineering in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS); Dimitri Antoniadis, the Ray and Maria Stata Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT; as well as others at MIT, the University of Waterloo, and Samsung Electronics.

Flipping the problem

Standard CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) chips traditionally have a front end, where the active components like transistors and capacitors are fabricated, and a back end that includes wires called interconnects and other metal bonds that connect components of the chip.

But some energy is lost when data travel between these bonds, and slight misalignments can hamper performance. Stacking active components would reduce the distance data must travel and improve a chip’s energy efficiency.

Typically, it is difficult to stack silicon transistors on a CMOS chip because the high temperature required to fabricate additional devices on the front end would destroy the existing transistors underneath.

The MIT researchers turned this problem on its head, developing an integration technique to stack active components on the back end of the chip instead.

“If we can use this back-end platform to put in additional active layers of transistors, not just interconnects, that would make the integration density of the chip much higher and improve its energy efficiency,” Shao explains.

The researchers accomplished this using a new material, amorphous indium oxide, as the active channel layer of their back-end transistor. The active channel layer is where the transistor’s essential functions take place.

Due to the unique properties of indium oxide, they can “grow” an extremely thin layer of this material at a temperature of only about 150 degrees Celsius on the back end of an existing circuit without damaging the device on the front end.

Perfecting the process

They carefully optimized the fabrication process, which minimizes the number of defects in a layer of indium oxide material that is only about 2 nanometers thick.

A few defects, known as oxygen vacancies, are necessary for the transistor to switch on, but with too many defects it won’t work properly. This optimized fabrication process allows the researchers to produce an extremely tiny transistor that operates rapidly and cleanly, eliminating much of the additional energy required to switch a transistor between off and on.

Building on this approach, they also fabricated back-end transistors with integrated memory that are only about 20 nanometers in size. To do this, they added a layer of material called ferroelectric hafnium-zirconium-oxide as the memory component.

These compact memory transistors demonstrated switching speeds of only 10 nanoseconds, hitting the limit of the team’s measurement instruments. This switching also requires much lower voltage than similar devices, reducing electricity consumption.

And because the memory transistors are so tiny, the researchers can use them as a platform to study the fundamental physics of individual units of ferroelectric hafnium-zirconium-oxide.

“If we can better understand the physics, we can use this material for many new applications. The energy it uses is very minimal, and it gives us a lot of flexibility in how we can design devices. It really could open up many new avenues for the future,” Shao says.

The researchers also worked with a team at the University of Waterloo to develop a model of the performance of the back-end transistors, which is an important step before the devices can be integrated into larger circuits and electronic systems.

In the future, they want to build upon these demonstrations by integrating back-end memory transistors onto a single circuit. They also want to enhance the performance of the transistors and study how to more finely control the properties of ferroelectric hafnium-zirconium-oxide.

“Now, we can build a platform of versatile electronics on the back end of a chip that enable us to achieve high energy efficiency and many different functionalities in very small devices. We have a good device architecture and material to work with, but we need to keep innovating to uncover the ultimate performance limits,” Shao says.

This work is supported, in part, by Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) and Intel. Fabrication was carried out at the MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories and MIT.nano facilities. 

Age verification laws are proliferating fast across the United States and around the world, creating a dangerous and confusing tangle of rules about what we’re all allowed to see and do online. Though these mandates claim to protect children, in practice they create harmful censorship and surveillance regimes that put everyone—adults and young people alike—at risk.

The term “age verification” is colloquially used to describe a wide range of age assurance technologies, from age verification systems that force you to upload government ID, to age estimation tools that scan your face, to systems that infer your age by making you share personal data. While different laws call for different methods, one thing remains constant: every method out there collects your sensitive, personal information and creates barriers to accessing the internet. We refer to all of these requirements as age verification, age assurance, or age-gating.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed by this onslaught of laws and the invasive technologies behind them, you’re not alone. It’s a lot. But understanding how these mandates work and who they harm is critical to keeping yourself and your loved ones safe online. Age verification is lurking around every corner these days, so we must fight back to protect the internet that we know and love. 

That’s why today, we’re launching EFF’s Age Verification Resource Hub (EFF.org/Age): a one-stop shop to understand what these laws actually do, what’s at stake, why EFF opposes all forms of age verification, how to protect yourself, and how to join the fight for a free, open, private, and yes—safe—internet. 

Why Age Verification Mandates Are a Problem

In the U.S., more than half of all states have now passed laws imposing age-verification requirements on online platforms. Congress is considering even more at the federal level, with a recent House hearing weighing nineteen distinct proposals relating to young people’s online safety—some sweeping, some contradictory, and each one more drastic and draconian than the last.

We all want young people to be safe online. However, age verification is not the silver bullet that lawmakers want you to think it is.

The rest of the world is moving in the same direction. We saw the UK’s Online Safety Act go into effect this summer, Australia’s new law barring access to social media for anyone under 16 goes live today, and a slew of other countries are currently considering similar restrictions.

We all want young people to be safe online. However, age verification is not the silver bullet that lawmakers want you to think it is. In fact, age-gating mandates will do more harm than good—especially for the young people they claim to protect. They undermine the fundamental speech rights of adults and young people alike; create new barriers to accessing vibrant, lawful, even life-saving content; and needlessly jeopardize all internet users’ privacy, anonymity, and security.

If legislators want to meaningfully improve online safety, they should pass a strong, comprehensive federal privacy law instead of building new systems of surveillance, censorship, and exclusion.  

What’s Inside the Resource Hub

Our new hub is built to answer the questions we hear from users every day, such as:

• How do age verification laws actually work?
• What’s the difference between age verification, age estimation, age assurance, and all the other confusing technical terms I’m hearing?
• What’s at stake for me, and who else is harmed by these systems?
• How can I keep myself, my family, and my community safe as these laws continue to roll out?
• What can I do to fight back?
• And if not age verification, what else can we do to protect the online safety of our young people?

Head over to EFF.org/Age to explore our explainers, user-friendly guides, technical breakdowns, and advocacy tools—all indexed in the sidebar for easy browsing. And today is just the start, so keep checking back over the next several weeks as we continue to build out the site with new resources and answers to more of your questions on all things age verification.

Join Us: Reddit AMA & EFFecting Change Livestream Events

To celebrate the launch of EFF.org/Age, and to hear directly from you how we can be most helpful in this fight, we’re hosting two exciting events:

1. Reddit AMA on r/privacy

Next week, our team of EFF activists, technologists, and lawyers will be hanging out over on Reddit’s r/privacy subreddit to directly answer your questions on all things age verification. We’re looking forward to connecting with you and hearing how we can help you navigate these changing tides, so come on over to r/privacy on Monday (12/15), Tuesday (12/16), and Wednesday (12/17), and ask us anything!

2. EFFecting Change Livestream Panel: “The Human Cost of Online Age Verification”

Then, on January 15th at 12pm PT, we’re hosting a livestream panel featuring Cynthia Conti-Cook, Director of Research and Policy at the Collaborative Research Center for Resilience; Hana Memon, Software Developer at Gen Z for Change; EFF Director of Engineering Alexis Hancock; and EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji. We’ll break down how these laws work, who they exclude, and how these mandates threaten privacy and free expression for people of all ages. Join us by RSVPing at https://livestream.eff.org/.

A Resource to Empower Users

Age-verification mandates are reshaping the internet in ways that are invasive, dangerous, and deeply unnecessary. But users are not powerless! We can challenge these laws, protect our digital rights, and build a safer digital world for all internet users, no matter their ages. Our new resource hub is here to help—so explore, share, and join us in the fight for a better internet.

On Nov. 8, the MIT Priscilla King Gray Public Service Center (MIT PKG Center) collaborated with the MIT Club of Princeton, New Jersey, and the Trenton Area Soup Kitchen (TASK) to prototype tech-driven interventions to the growing challenge of food insecurity in the Trenton, New Jersey region.  

Twelve undergraduates traveled to Trenton for a one-day social impact hackathon, working in teams with alumni active in the MIT Club of Princeton to address technical challenges posed by TASK. These included predicting the number of daily meals based on historical data for an organization serving over 12,000 meals each week, and gathering real-time feedback from hundreds of patrons with limited access to technology. 

The day culminated in a pitch session judged by MIT alumni and TASK leadership. The winning solution, developed by a cross-generational team of MIT alumni and students, addressed one of TASK’s most pressing challenges with a blend of technical ingenuity and human-centered design. Drawing on TASK datasets and external data such as weather and holidays, the team proposed a predictive dashboard that impressed judges with its practical utility, enabling the kitchen to reduce waste and distribute the appropriate number of meals to varied locations. TASK also appreciated several elements of solutions proposed to gather real-time feedback from patrons, and plans to experiment with them. 

“The last few weeks have shown how quickly the need for food can escalate in a place like Trenton, where so many people are living below or close to the federal poverty line,” says TASK CEO Amy Flynn. “The issues we are facing are complex and unprecedented, and the hackathon was an opportunity to think about our challenges, and their solutions, in modern and innovative ways. TASK is very excited to be partnering with MIT, the PKG Center for Social Impact, and the local MIT Club of Princeton for this event, particularly at this critical time.”

Students will implement the winning intervention through the PKG Center’s Social Impact Internship Program during MIT’s Independent Activities Period (IAP) in January 2026. Alumni from the MIT Club of Princeton will also serve as mentors to students during their internship. 

Alumni connections

The PKG Center recently completed a new strategic plan, and heard through the process that alumni and students passionate about making a positive impact want more opportunities to interact with and learn from each other.

“A hackathon seemed like an ideal way to connect students and alumni, generating mentoring relationships while making a tangible impact,” says Alison Badgett, associate dean and director of the PKG Center. “We’re grateful to the MIT Club of Princeton and the Trenton Area Soup Kitchen for enabling us to pilot what we hope will be a regular event.”

The idea for a regional hackathon came from the Friends of the PKG Center, the center’s alumni advisory board, which grew 25 percent this year with the addition of several young alumni. Princeton-based alumni Eberhard Wunderlich SM ’75, PhD ’78 and Shahla Wunderlich PhD ’78 offered to help make the idea a reality by connecting PKG with local partners. 

"We have been longtime friends of the PKG Center and have observed over the years that MIT students are uniquely positioned to make a real impact. We were eager to connect the PKG Center with the MIT Club of Princeton and TASK because we knew this collaboration would be meaningful not only for students, alumni, and families, but also for many people in need within our community," said the Wunderlichs. “It was a wonderful experience working with such talented students. We were happy to participate and look forward to the project enhancing the operation of TASK, which provides meals and develops skills for independence for those in need in Mercer County, New Jersey.”

A legacy of innovation and impact

The hackathon was facilitated by Lauren Tyger, the PKG Center’s assistant dean for social innovation, who leads a growing suite of social innovation and entrepreneurship programming for the PKG Center. Tyger recruited the 12 undergraduate participants from PKG’s Social Innovation Exploration first-year pre-orientation program (FPOP), an intensive five-day hackathon exploring food insecurity through the lens of sustainability at MIT and in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

“For students, the regional alumni-student hackathon was an opportunity to implement what they learned through PKG’s FPOP to a real-world challenge with TASK,” says Tyger. “We hope students will not only be inspired to implement their winning interventions through an IAP internship, but also to explore social enterprise solutions to food insecurity through our IDEAS Social Innovation Incubator, now in its 25th year.”

With the success of this event, the PKG Center is exploring opportunities to host more alumni-student hackathons with regional MIT clubs, as a way to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the IDEAS Social Innovation Challenge, which has invested $1.3 million in nearly 300 social enterprises since its inception in 2001. 

“Getting to work with TASK was amazing because it allowed me to put the skills I learned in PKG’s SIE FPOP to a real-world application that could help people,” says Vivian Dinh, a student who participated in the hackathon. “It was a great feeling to put together things that we learned in SIE like ideation strategies, interviewing skills, and prototyping into a product, and then see that TASK truly believed in our ideas. Overall, it was a very empowering experience, knowing that my skills and ideas could help a community.”

In the vision disorder amblyopia (commonly known as “lazy eye”), impaired vision in one eye during development causes neural connections in the brain’s visual system to shift toward supporting the other eye, leaving the amblyopic eye less capable even after the original impairment is corrected. Current interventions are only effective during infancy and early childhood, while the neural connections are still being formed. 

Now a study in mice by neuroscientists in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT shows that if the retina of the amblyopic eye is temporarily and reversibly anesthetized just for a couple of days, the brain’s visual response to the eye can be restored, even in adulthood.

The open-access findings, published Nov. 25 in Cell Reports, may improve the clinical potential of the idea of temporarily anesthetizing a retina to restore the strength of the amblyopic eye’s neural connections. 

In 2021, the lab of Picower Professor Mark Bear and collaborators showed that anesthetizing the non-amblyopic eye could improve vision in the amblyopic one — an approach analogous in that way to the treatment used in childhood of patching the unimpaired eye. Those 2021 findings have now been replicated in adults of multiple species. But the new evidence on how inactivation works suggests that the proposed treatment also could be effective when applied directly to the amblyopic eye, Bear says, though a key next step will be to again show that it works in additional species and, ultimately, people.

“If it does, it’s a pretty substantial step forward, because it would be reassuring to know that vision in the good eye would not have to be interrupted by treatment,” says Bear, a faculty member in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. “The amblyopic eye, which is not doing much, could be inactivated and ‘brought back to life’ instead. Still, I think that especially with any invasive treatment, it’s extremely important to confirm the results in higher species with visual systems closer to our own.”

Madison Echavarri-Leet PhD ’25, whose doctoral thesis included this research, is the lead author of the study, which also demonstrates the underlying process in the brain that makes the potential treatment work.

A beneficial burst

Bear’s lab has been studying the science underlying amblyopia for decades, for instance by working to understand the molecular mechanisms that enable neural circuits to change their connections in response to visual experience or deprivation. The research has produced ideas about how to address amblyopia in adulthood. In a 2016 study with collaborators at Dalhousie University, they showed that temporarily anesthetizing both retinas could restore vision loss in amblyopia. Then, five years later, they published the study showing that anesthetizing just the non-amblyopic eye produced visual recovery for the amblyopic eye.

Throughout that time, the lab weighed multiple hypotheses to explain how retinal inactivation works its magic. Lingering in the lab’s archive of results, Bear says, was an unexplored finding in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that relays information from the eyes to the visual cortex, where vision is processed: back in 2008, they had found that blocking inputs from a retina to neurons in the LGN caused those neurons to fire synchronous “bursts” of electrical signals to downstream neurons in the visual cortex. Similar patterns of activity occur in the visual system before birth and guide early synaptic development.

The new study tested whether those bursts might have a role in the potential amblyopia treatments the lab was reporting. To get started, Leet and Bear’s team used a single injection of tetrodotoxin (TTX) to anesthetize retinas in the lab animals. They found that the bursting occurred not only in LGN neurons that received input from the anesthetized eye, but also in LGN neurons that received input from the unaffected eye.

From there, they showed that the bursting response depended on a particular “T-type” channel for calcium in the LGN neurons. This was important, because knowing this gave the scientists a way to turn it off. Once they gained that ability, then they could test whether doing so prevented TTX from having a therapeutic effect in mice with amblyopia.

Sure enough, when the researchers genetically knocked out the channels and disrupted the bursting, they found that anesthetizing the non-amblyopic eye could no longer help amblyopic mice. That showed the bursting is necessary for the treatment to work.

Aiding amblyopia

Given their finding that bursting occurs when either retina is anesthetized, the scientists hypothesized it might be enough to just do it in the amblyopic eye. To test this, they ran an experiment in which some mice modeling amblyopia received TTX in their amblyopic eye and some did not. The injection took the retina offline for two days. After a week, the scientists then measured activity in neurons in the visual cortex to calculate a ratio of input from each eye. They found that the ratio was much more even in mice that received the treatment versus those left untreated, indicating that after the amblyopic eye was anesthetized, its input in the brain rose to be at parity with input from the non-amblyopic one.

Further testing is needed, Bear notes, but the team wrote in the study that the results were encouraging.

“We are cautiously optimistic that these findings may lead to a new treatment approach for human amblyopia, particularly given the discovery that silencing the amblyopic eye is effective,” the scientists wrote.

In addition to Leet and Bear, the paper’s authors are Tushar Chauhan, Teresa Cramer, and Ming-fai Fong.

The National Institutes of Health, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Severin Hacker Vision Research Fund, and the Freedom Together Foundation supported the study.

The state of streaming is... bad. It’s very bad. The first step in wanting to watch anything is a web search: “Where can I stream X?” Then you have to scroll past an AI summary with no answers, and then scroll past the sponsored links. After that, you find out that the thing you want to watch was made by a studio that doesn’t exist anymore or doesn’t have a streaming service. So, even though you subscribe to more streaming services than you could actually name, you will have to buy a digital copy to watch. A copy that, despite paying for it specifically, you do not actually own and might vanish in a few years. 

Then, after you paid to see something multiple times in multiple ways (theater ticket, VHS tape, DVD, etc.), the mega-corporations behind this nightmare will try to get Congress to pass laws to ensure you keep paying them. In the end, this is easier than making a product that works. Or, as someone put it on social media, these companies have forgotten “that their entire existence relies on being slightly more convenient than piracy.” 

It’s important to recognize this as we see more and more media mergers. These mergers are not about quality, they’re about control. 

In the old days, studios made a TV show. If the show was a hit, they increased how much they charged companies to place ads during the show. And if the show was a hit for long enough, they sold syndication rights to another channel. Then people could discover the show again, and maybe come back to watch it air live. In that model, the goal was to spread access to a program as much as possible to increase viewership and the number of revenue streams.  

Now, in the digital age, studios have picked up a Silicon Valley trait: putting all their eggs into the basket of “increasing the number of users.” To do that, they have to create scarcity. There has to be only one destination for the thing you’re looking for, and it has to be their own. And you shouldn’t be able to control the experience at all. They should.  

They’ve also moved away from creating buzzy new exclusives to get you to pay them. That requires risk and also, you know, paying creative people to make them. Instead, they’re consolidating.  

Media companies keep announcing mergers and acquisitions. They’ve been doing it for a long time, but it’s really ramped up in the last few years. And these mergers are bad for all the obvious reasons. There are the speech and censorship reasons that came to a head in, of all places, late night television. There are the labor issues. There are the concentration of power issues. There are the obvious problems that the fewer studios that exist the fewer chances good art gets to escape Hollywood and make it to our eyes and ears. But when it comes specifically to digital life there are these: consumer experience and ownership.  

First, the more content that comes under a single corporation’s control, the more they expect you to come to them for it. And the more they want to charge. And because there is less competition, the less they need to work to make their streaming app usable. They then enforce their hegemony by using the draconian copyright restrictions they’ve lobbied for to cripple smaller competitors, critics, and fair use.  

When everything is either Disney or NBCUniversal or Warner Brothers-Discovery-Paramount-CBS and everything is totally siloed, what need will they have to spend money improving any part of their product? Making things is hard, stopping others from proving how bad you are is easy, thanks to how broken copyright law is.  

Furthermore, because every company is chasing increasing subscriber numbers instead of multiple revenue streams, they have an interest in preventing you from ever again “owning” a copy of a work. This was always sort of part of the business plan, but it was on a scale of a) once every couple of years,  b) at least it came, in theory, with some new features or enhanced quality and c) you actually owned the copy you paid for. Now they want you to pay them every month for access to same copy. And, hey, the price is going to keep going up the fewer options you have. Or you will see more ads. Or start seeing ads where there weren’t any before.  

On the one hand, the increasing dependence on direct subscriber numbers does give users back some power. Jimmy Kimmel’s reinstatement by ABC was partly due to the fact that the company was about to announce a price hike for Disney+ and it couldn’t handle losing users due to the new price and due to popular outrage over Kimmel’s treatment.  

On the other hand, well, there's everything else. 

The latest kerfuffle is over the sale of Warner Brothers-Discovery, a company that was already the subject of a sale and merger resulting in the hyphen. Netflix was competiing against another recently merged media megazord of Paramount Skydance.  

Warner Brothers-Discovery accepted a bid from Netflix, enraging Paramount Skydance, which has now launched a hostile takeover.  

Now the optimum outcome is for neither of these takeovers to happen. There are already too few players in Hollywood. It does nothing for the health of the industry to allow either merger. A functioning antitrust regime would stop both the sale and the hostile takeover attempt, full stop. But Hollywood and the federal government are frequent collaborators, and the feds have little incentive to stop Hollywood’s behemoths from growing even further, as long as they continue to play their role as propagandists for the American empire.    

The promise of the digital era was in part convenience. You never again had to look at TV listings to find out when something would be airing. Virtually unlimited digital storage meant everything would be at your fingertips. But then the corporations went to work to make sure it never happened. And with each and every merger, that promise gets further and further away.