Don't count on it. FPGAs are stupidly expensive, and those vendor-provided devboards are often sold below market price. Anything worth your time is stuck behind a proprietary toolchain. Besides, there just isn't all that much you can realistically do with it. FPGAs shine at realtime processing of huge volumes of data, but you lack the necessary IO in a mobile form factor to do anything meaningful you couldn't already do with a CPU or GPU.
The Precursor is a neat device, but in the end it's essentially a toy. The entire concept hinges on emulating a SoC with the FPGA, but a real SoC can offer an order of magnitude more performance at a tenth the price. It only makes sense if your risk model is a chip vendor putting backdoors in the SoC - but at that point why would you trust the FPGA? It's just moving the goalposts, really.
The reason you would trust and FPGA more than a SoC is because putting in backdoors in an FPGA is much harder. If an FPGA is backdoored to the point where any soft core (whose layout kind be randomized to some degree) is compromised, then that would likely be obvious from the kind of inspections Bunnie has written about: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2023/infra-red-in-situ-ir...
Why is it a toy just because it has an order of magnitude less performance? Computers became powerful enough for most people decades ago. I get much more utility out of a computer that grows capability in other aspects like mobility and power consumption.
The Precursor is a neat device, but in the end it's essentially a toy. The entire concept hinges on emulating a SoC with the FPGA, but a real SoC can offer an order of magnitude more performance at a tenth the price. It only makes sense if your risk model is a chip vendor putting backdoors in the SoC - but at that point why would you trust the FPGA? It's just moving the goalposts, really.