In cryptography, a key-agreement protocol is a protocol whereby two (or more) parties generate a cryptographic key as a function of information provided by each honest party so that no party can predetermine the resulting value. In particular, all honest participants influence the outcome. A key-agreement protocol is a specialisation of a key-exchange protocol. At the completion of the protocol, all parties share the same key. A key-agreement protocol precludes undesired third parties from forcing a key choice on the agreeing parties. A secure key agreement can ensure confidentiality and data integrity in communications systems, ranging from simple messaging applications to complex banking transactions. Secure agreement is defined relative to a security model, for example the Universal Model. More generally, when evaluating protocols, it is important to state security goals and the security model. For example, it may be required for the session key to be authenticated. A protocol can be evaluated for success only in the context of its goals and attack model. An example of an adversarial model is the Dolev–Yao model. In many key exchange systems, one party generates the key, and sends that key to the other party; the other party has no influence on the key. == Exponential key exchange == The first publicly known public-key agreement protocol that meets the above criteria was the Diffie–Hellman key exchange, in which two parties jointly exponentiate a generator with random numbers, in such a way that an eavesdropper cannot feasibly determine what the resultant shared key is. Exponential key agreement in and of itself does not specify any prior agreement or subsequent authentication between the participants. It has thus been described as an anonymous key agreement protocol. == Symmetric key agreement == Symmetric key agreement (SKA) is a method of key agreement that uses solely symmetric cryptography and cryptographic hash functions as cryptographic primitives. It is related to symmetric authenticated key exchange. SKA may assume the use of initial shared secrets or a trusted third party with whom the agreeing parties share a secret is assumed. If no third party is present, then achieving SKA can be trivial: we tautologically assume that two parties that share an initial secret and have achieved SKA. SKA contrasts with key-agreement protocols that include techniques from asymmetric cryptography, such as key encapsulation mechanisms. The initial exchange of a shared key must be done in a manner that is private and integrity-assured. Historically, this was achieved by physical means, such as by using a trusted courier. An example of a SKA protocol is the Needham–Schroeder protocol. It establishes a session key between two parties on the same network, using a server as a trusted third party. The original Needham–Schroeder protocol is vulnerable to a replay attack. Timestamps and nonces are included to fix this attack. It forms the basis for the Kerberos protocol. === Types of key agreement === Boyd et al. classify two-party key agreement protocols according to two criteria as follows: whether a pre-shared key already exists or not the method of generating the session key. The pre-shared key may be shared between the two parties, or each party may share a key with a trusted third party. If there is no secure channel (as may be established via a pre-shared key), it is impossible to create an authenticated session key. The session key may be generated via: key transport, key agreement and hybrid. If there is no trusted third party, then the cases of key transport and hybrid session key generation are indistinguishable. SKA is concerned with protocols in which the session key is established using only symmetric primitives. == Authentication == Anonymous key exchange, like Diffie–Hellman, does not provide authentication of the parties, and is thus vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. A wide variety of cryptographic authentication schemes and protocols have been developed to provide authenticated key agreement to prevent man-in-the-middle and related attacks. These methods generally mathematically bind the agreed key to other agreed-upon data, such as the following: public–private key pairs shared secret keys passwords === Public keys === A widely used mechanism for defeating such attacks is the use of digitally signed keys that must be integrity-assured: if Bob's key is signed by a trusted third party vouching for his identity, Alice can have considerable confidence that a signed key she receives is not an attempt to intercept by Eve. When Alice and Bob have a public-key infrastructure, they may digitally sign an agreed Diffie–Hellman key, or exchanged Diffie–Hellman public keys. Such signed keys, sometimes signed by a certificate authority, are one of the primary mechanisms used for secure web traffic (including HTTPS, SSL or TLS protocols). Other specific examples are MQV, YAK and the ISAKMP component of the IPsec protocol suite for securing Internet Protocol communications. However, these systems require care in endorsing the match between identity information and public keys by certificate authorities in order to work properly. === Hybrid systems === Hybrid systems use public-key cryptography to exchange secret keys, which are then used in a symmetric-key cryptography systems. Most practical applications of cryptography use a combination of cryptographic functions to implement an overall system that provides all of the four desirable features of secure communications (confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation). === Passwords === Password-authenticated key agreement protocols require the separate establishment of a password (which may be smaller than a key) in a manner that is both private and integrity-assured. These are designed to resist man-in-the-middle and other active attacks on the password and the established keys. For example, DH-EKE, SPEKE, and SRP are password-authenticated variations of Diffie–Hellman. === Other tricks === If one has an integrity-assured way to verify a shared key over a public channel, one may engage in a Diffie–Hellman key exchange to derive a short-term shared key, and then subsequently authenticate that the keys match. One way is to use a voice-authenticated read-out of the key, as in PGPfone. Voice authentication, however, presumes that it is infeasible for a man-in-the-middle to spoof one participant's voice to the other in real-time, which may be an undesirable assumption. Such protocols may be designed to work with even a small public value, such as a password. Variations on this theme have been proposed for Bluetooth pairing protocols. In an attempt to avoid using any additional out-of-band authentication factors, Davies and Price proposed the use of the interlock protocol of Ron Rivest and Adi Shamir, which has been subject to both attack and subsequent refinement.
Shape table
Shape tables are a feature of the Apple II ROMs which allows for manipulation of small images encoded as a series of vectors. An image (or shape) can be drawn in the high-resolution graphics mode—with scaling and rotation—via software routines in the ROM. Shape tables are supported via Applesoft BASIC and from machine code in the "Programmer's Aid" package that was bundled with the original Integer BASIC ROMs for that computer. Applesoft's high-resolution graphics routines were not optimized for speed, so shape tables were not typically used for performance-critical software such as games, which were typically written in assembly language and used pre-shifted bitmap shapes. Shape tables were used primarily for static shapes and sometimes for fancy text; Beagle Bros offered a number of fonts in Font Mechanic as Applesoft shape tables. == Technical details == The vectors of a two-dimensional graphic, each encoding a direction from the previous pixel along with a flag indicating whether the new pixel should be illuminated or not, were encoded up to three in a byte. These were stored in a table via the Monitor or the POKE command. From there, the graphic could be referenced by number (a table could contain up to 255 shapes), and built-in Applesoft routines permitted scaling, rotating, and drawing or erasing the shape. An XOR mode was also available to allow the shape to be visible on any color background; this had the advantage, also, of allowing the shape to be easily erased by redrawing it. Apple did not provide any utilities for creating shape tables; they had to be created by hand, usually by plotting on graph paper, then calculating the hexadecimal values and entering them into the computer. Beagle Bros created a shape table editing program, which eliminated the "number crunching", called Apple Mechanic, and a related program, Font Mechanic.
Ben Goertzel
Ben Goertzel is a computer scientist, artificial intelligence (AI) researcher, and businessman. He helped popularize the term artificial general intelligence (AGI). == Early life and education == Three of Goertzel's Jewish great-grandparents immigrated to New York from Lithuania and Poland (in the Russian Empire). Goertzel's father is Ted Goertzel, a former professor of sociology at Rutgers University. Goertzel left high school after the tenth grade to attend Bard College at Simon's Rock, where he graduated with a bachelor's degree in Quantitative Studies. Goertzel graduated with a PhD in mathematics from Temple University under the supervision of Avi Lin in 1990, at age 23. == Career == Goertzel is the founder and CEO of SingularityNET, a project which was founded to distribute artificial intelligence data via blockchains. He is a leading developer of the OpenCog framework for artificial general intelligence. Goertzel was an associate and grant recipient of Jeffrey Epstein. He received a $100,000 grant from the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation for artificial general intelligence research in 2001. When interviewed by The New York Times about Epstein in 2019, Goertzel said, "I have no desire to talk about Epstein right now... The stuff I'm reading about him in the papers is pretty disturbing and goes way beyond what I thought his misdoings and kinks were. Yecch." === Sophia the Robot === Goertzel was the Chief Scientist of Hanson Robotics, the company that created the Sophia robot. As of 2018, Sophia's architecture includes scripting software, a chat system, and OpenCog, an AI system designed for general reasoning. Experts in the field have treated the project mostly as a PR stunt, stating that Hanson's claims that Sophia was "basically alive" are "grossly misleading" because the project does not involve AI technology, while computer scientist Yann LeCun, then Meta's chief AI scientist, made several unflattering remarks including calling the project "complete bullshit". === Views on AI === In May 2007, Goertzel spoke at a Google tech talk about his approach to creating artificial general intelligence. He defines intelligence as the ability to detect patterns in the world and in the agent itself, measurable in terms of emergent behavior of "achieving complex goals in complex environments". A "baby-like" artificial intelligence is initialized, then trained as an agent in a simulated or virtual world such as Second Life to produce a more powerful intelligence. Knowledge is represented in a network whose nodes and links carry probabilistic truth values as well as "attention values", with the attention values resembling the weights in a neural network. Several algorithms operate on this network, the central one being a combination of a probabilistic inference engine and a custom version of evolutionary programming. The 2012 documentary The Singularity by independent filmmaker Doug Wolens discussed Goertzel's views on AGI. In 2023 Goertzel postulated that artificial intelligence could replace up to 80 percent of human jobs in the coming years "without having an AGI, by my guess. Not with ChatGPT exactly as a product. But with systems of that nature". At the Web Summit 2023 in Rio de Janeiro, Goertzel spoke out against efforts to curb AI research and that AGI is only a few years away. Goertzel's belief is that AGI will be a net positive for humanity by assisting with societal problems such as, but not limited to, climate change.
Büchi automaton
In computer science and automata theory, a deterministic Büchi automaton is a theoretical machine which either accepts or rejects infinite inputs. Such a machine has a set of states and a transition function, which determines which state the machine should move to from its current state when it reads the next input character. Some states are accepting states and one state is the start state. The machine accepts an input if and only if it will pass through an accepting state infinitely many times as it reads the input. A non-deterministic Büchi automaton, later referred to just as a Büchi automaton, has a transition function which may have multiple outputs, leading to many possible paths for the same input; it accepts an infinite input if and only if some possible path is accepting. Deterministic and non-deterministic Büchi automata generalize deterministic finite automata and nondeterministic finite automata to infinite inputs. Each are types of ω-automata. Büchi automata recognize the ω-regular languages, the infinite word version of regular languages. They are named after the Swiss mathematician Julius Richard Büchi, who invented them in 1962. Büchi automata are often used in model checking as an automata-theoretic version of a formula in linear temporal logic. == Formal definition == Formally, a deterministic Büchi automaton is a tuple A = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\textstyle A=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},\mathbf {F} )} that consists of the following components: Q {\textstyle Q} is a finite set. The elements of Q {\textstyle Q} are called the states of A {\textstyle A} . Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } is a finite set called the alphabet of A {\textstyle A} . δ : Q × Σ → Q {\textstyle \delta \colon Q\times \Sigma \to Q} is a function, called the transition function of A {\textstyle A} . q 0 {\textstyle q_{0}} is an element of Q {\textstyle Q} , called the initial state of A {\textstyle A} . F ⊆ Q {\textstyle \mathbf {F} \subseteq Q} is the acceptance condition. A run i _ = i 0 i 1 i 2 ⋯ ∈ Σ ω {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}=i_{0}i_{1}i_{2}\cdots \in \Sigma ^{\omega }} is an infinite string of inputs of A {\displaystyle A} . By calling δ {\displaystyle \delta } recursively, we can extend it to a function δ ω : Σ ω → Q ω {\displaystyle \delta ^{\omega }:\Sigma ^{\omega }\to Q^{\omega }} . A state q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is said to occur infinitely often for a run i _ {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}} when the set { n ∈ N ∣ δ ω ( i _ ) n = q } {\displaystyle \{n\in \mathbb {N} \mid \delta ^{\omega }({\underline {i}})_{n}=q\}} is infinite. Let I n f ( i _ ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {Inf} ({\underline {i}})} be the set of states occurring infinitely often for i _ {\displaystyle {\underline {i}}} . The language of A {\displaystyle A} is then the set of runs of A {\displaystyle A} in which at least one of the infinitely-often occurring states is in F {\textstyle \mathbf {F} } ; in symbols: L ( A ) = { i _ ∈ Σ ω ∣ I n f ( i _ ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ } . {\displaystyle L(A)=\{{\underline {i}}\in \Sigma ^{\omega }\mid \mathrm {Inf} ({\underline {i}})\cap \mathbf {F} \neq \varnothing \}.} In a (non-deterministic) Büchi automaton, the transition function δ {\textstyle \delta } is replaced with a transition relation Δ {\textstyle \Delta } that returns a set of states, and the single initial state q 0 {\textstyle q_{0}} is replaced by a set I {\textstyle I} of initial states. Generally, the term Büchi automaton without qualifier refers to non-deterministic Büchi automata. For more comprehensive formalism see also ω-automaton. == Closure properties == The set of Büchi automata is closed under the following operations. Let A = ( Q A , Σ , Δ A , I A , F A ) {\displaystyle A=(Q_{A},\Sigma ,\Delta _{A},I_{A},{F}_{A})} and B = ( Q B , Σ , Δ B , I B , F B ) {\displaystyle B=(Q_{B},\Sigma ,\Delta _{B},I_{B},{F}_{B})} be Büchi automata and C = ( Q C , Σ , Δ C , I C , F C ) {\displaystyle C=(Q_{C},\Sigma ,\Delta _{C},I_{C},{F}_{C})} be a finite automaton. Union: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( A ) ∪ L ( B ) . {\displaystyle L(A)\cup L(B).} Proof: If we assume, w.l.o.g., Q A ∩ Q B {\displaystyle Q_{A}\cap Q_{B}} is empty then L ( A ) ∪ L ( B ) {\displaystyle L(A)\cup L(B)} is recognized by the Büchi automaton ( Q A ∪ Q B , Σ ∪ Σ , Δ A ∪ Δ B , I A ∪ I B , F A ∪ F B ) . {\displaystyle (Q_{A}\cup Q_{B},\Sigma \cup \Sigma ,\Delta _{A}\cup \Delta _{B},I_{A}\cup I_{B},{F}_{A}\cup {F}_{B}).} Intersection: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( A ) ∩ L ( B ) . {\displaystyle L(A)\cap L(B).} Proof: The Büchi automaton A ′ = ( Q ′ , Σ , Δ ′ , I ′ , F ′ ) {\displaystyle A'=(Q',\Sigma ,\Delta ',I',F')} recognizes L ( A ) ∩ L ( B ) , {\displaystyle L(A)\cap L(B),} where Q ′ = Q A × Q B × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle Q'=Q_{A}\times Q_{B}\times \{1,2\}} Δ ′ = Δ 1 ∪ Δ 2 {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{1}\cup \Delta _{2}} Δ 1 = { ( ( q A , q B , 1 ) , a , ( q A ′ , q B ′ , i ) ) | ( q A , a , q A ′ ) ∈ Δ A and ( q B , a , q B ′ ) ∈ Δ B and if q A ∈ F A then i = 2 else i = 1 } {\displaystyle \Delta _{1}=\{((q_{A},q_{B},1),a,(q'_{A},q'_{B},i))|(q_{A},a,q'_{A})\in \Delta _{A}{\text{ and }}(q_{B},a,q'_{B})\in \Delta _{B}{\text{ and if }}q_{A}\in F_{A}{\text{ then }}i=2{\text{ else }}i=1\}} Δ 2 = { ( ( q A , q B , 2 ) , a , ( q A ′ , q B ′ , i ) ) | ( q A , a , q A ′ ) ∈ Δ A and ( q B , a , q B ′ ) ∈ Δ B and if q B ∈ F B then i = 1 else i = 2 } {\displaystyle \Delta _{2}=\{((q_{A},q_{B},2),a,(q'_{A},q'_{B},i))|(q_{A},a,q'_{A})\in \Delta _{A}{\text{ and }}(q_{B},a,q'_{B})\in \Delta _{B}{\text{ and if }}q_{B}\in F_{B}{\text{ then }}i=1{\text{ else }}i=2\}} I ′ = I A × I B × { 1 } {\displaystyle I'=I_{A}\times I_{B}\times \{1\}} F ′ = { ( q A , q B , 2 ) | q B ∈ F B } {\displaystyle F'=\{(q_{A},q_{B},2)|q_{B}\in F_{B}\}} By construction, r ′ = ( q A 0 , q B 0 , i 0 ) , ( q A 1 , q B 1 , i 1 ) , … {\displaystyle r'=(q_{A}^{0},q_{B}^{0},i^{0}),(q_{A}^{1},q_{B}^{1},i^{1}),\dots } is a run of automaton A' on input word w {\textstyle w} if r A = q A 0 , q A 1 , … {\displaystyle r_{A}=q_{A}^{0},q_{A}^{1},\dots } is run of A {\textstyle A} on w {\textstyle w} and r B = q B 0 , q B 1 , … {\displaystyle r_{B}=q_{B}^{0},q_{B}^{1},\dots } is run of B {\textstyle B} on w {\textstyle w} . r A {\textstyle r_{A}} is accepting and r B {\textstyle r_{B}} is accepting if r ′ {\textstyle r'} is concatenation of an infinite series of finite segments of 1-states (states with third component 1) and 2-states (states with third component 2) alternatively. There is such a series of segments of r ′ {\textstyle r'} if r ′ {\textstyle r'} is accepted by A ′ {\textstyle A'} . Concatenation: There is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( C ) ⋅ L ( A ) . {\displaystyle L(C)\cdot L(A).} Proof: If we assume, w.l.o.g., Q C ∩ Q A {\displaystyle Q_{C}\cap Q_{A}} is empty then the Büchi automaton A ′ = ( Q C ∪ Q A , Σ , Δ ′ , I ′ , F A ) {\displaystyle A'=(Q_{C}\cup Q_{A},\Sigma ,\Delta ',I',F_{A})} recognizes L ( C ) ⋅ L ( A ) {\displaystyle L(C)\cdot L(A)} , where Δ ′ = Δ A ∪ Δ C ∪ { ( q , a , q ′ ) | q ′ ∈ I A and ∃ f ∈ F C . ( q , a , f ) ∈ Δ C } {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{A}\cup \Delta _{C}\cup \{(q,a,q')|q'\in I_{A}{\text{ and }}\exists f\in F_{C}.(q,a,f)\in \Delta _{C}\}} if I C ∩ F C is empty then I ′ = I C otherwise I ′ = I C ∪ I A {\displaystyle {\text{ if }}I_{C}\cap F_{C}{\text{ is empty then }}I'=I_{C}{\text{ otherwise }}I'=I_{C}\cup I_{A}} ω-closure: If L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} does not contain the empty word then there is a Büchi automaton that recognizes the language L ( C ) ω . {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }.} Proof: The Büchi automaton that recognizes L ( C ) ω {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }} is constructed in two stages. First, we construct a finite automaton A ′ {\textstyle A'} such that A ′ {\textstyle A'} also recognizes L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} but there are no incoming transitions to initial states of A ′ {\textstyle A'} . So, A ′ = ( Q C ∪ { q new } , Σ , Δ ′ , { q new } , F C ) , {\displaystyle A'=(Q_{C}\cup \{q_{\text{new}}\},\Sigma ,\Delta ',\{q_{\text{new}}\},F_{C}),} where Δ ′ = Δ C ∪ { ( q new , a , q ′ ) | ∃ q ∈ I C . ( q , a , q ′ ) ∈ Δ C } . {\displaystyle \Delta '=\Delta _{C}\cup \{(q_{\text{new}},a,q')|\exists q\in I_{C}.(q,a,q')\in \Delta _{C}\}.} Note that L ( C ) = L ( A ′ ) {\displaystyle L(C)=L(A')} because L ( C ) {\displaystyle L(C)} does not contain the empty string. Second, we will construct the Büchi automaton A ″ {\textstyle A''} that recognize L ( C ) ω {\displaystyle L(C)^{\omega }} by adding a loop back to the initial state of A ′ {\textstyle A'} . So, A ″ = ( Q C ∪ { q new } , Σ , Δ ″ , { q new } , { q new } ) {\displaystyle A''=(Q_{C}\cup \{q_{\text{new}}\},\Sigma ,\Delta '',\{q_{\text{new}}\},\{q_{\text{new}}\})} , where Δ ″ = Δ ′ ∪ { ( q , a , q new ) | ∃ q ′ ∈ F C . ( q , a , q ′ ) ∈ Δ ′ } . {\displaystyle \Delta ''=\Delta '\cup \{(q,a,q_{\text{new}})|\exists q'\in F_{C}.(q,a,q')\in \Delta '\}.} Complementation:
Transfer-based machine translation
Transfer-based machine translation is a type of machine translation (MT). It is currently one of the most widely used methods of machine translation. In contrast to the simpler direct model of MT, transfer MT breaks translation into three steps: analysis of the source language text to determine its grammatical structure, transfer of the resulting structure to a structure suitable for generating text in the target language, and finally generation of this text. Transfer-based MT systems are thus capable of using knowledge of the source and target languages. == Design == Both transfer-based and interlingua-based machine translation have the same idea: to make a translation it is necessary to have an intermediate representation that captures the "meaning" of the original sentence in order to generate the correct translation. In interlingua-based MT this intermediate representation must be independent of the languages in question, whereas in transfer-based MT, it has some dependence on the language pair involved. The way in which transfer-based machine translation systems work varies substantially, but in general they follow the same pattern: they apply sets of linguistic rules which are defined as correspondences between the structure of the source language and that of the target language. The first stage involves analysing the input text for morphology and syntax (and sometimes semantics) to create an internal representation. The translation is generated from this representation using both bilingual dictionaries and grammatical rules. It is possible with this translation strategy to obtain fairly high quality translations, with accuracy in the region of 90% (although this is highly dependent on the language pair in question, for example the distance between the two). == Operation == In a rule-based machine translation system the original text is first analysed morphologically and syntactically in order to obtain a syntactic representation. This representation can then be refined to a more abstract level putting emphasis on the parts relevant for translation and ignoring other types of information. The transfer process then converts this final representation (still in the original language) to a representation of the same level of abstraction in the target language. These two representations are referred to as "intermediate" representations. From the target language representation, the stages are then applied in reverse. == Analysis and transformation == Various methods of analysis and transformation can be used before obtaining the final result. Along with these statistical approaches may be augmented generating hybrid systems. The methods which are chosen and the emphasis depends largely on the design of the system, however, most systems include at least the following stages: Morphological analysis. Surface forms of the input text are classified as to part-of-speech (e.g. noun, verb, etc.) and sub-category (number, gender, tense, etc.). All of the possible "analyses" for each surface form are typically made output at this stage, along with the lemma of the word. Lexical categorisation. In any given text some of the words may have more than one meaning, causing ambiguity in analysis. Lexical categorisation looks at the context of a word to try to determine the correct meaning in the context of the input. This can involve part-of-speech tagging and word sense disambiguation. Lexical transfer. This is basically dictionary translation; the source language lemma (perhaps with sense information) is looked up in a bilingual dictionary and the translation is chosen. Structural transfer. While the previous stages deal with words, this stage deals with larger constituents, for example phrases and chunks. Typical features of this stage include concordance of gender and number, and re-ordering of words or phrases. Morphological generation. From the output of the structural transfer stage, the target language surface forms are generated. == Transfer types == One of the main features of transfer-based machine translation systems is a phase that "transfers" an intermediate representation of the text in the original language to an intermediate representation of text in the target language. This can work at one of two levels of linguistic analysis, or somewhere in between. The levels are: Superficial transfer (or syntactic). This level is characterised by transferring "syntactic structures" between the source and target languages. It is suitable for languages in the same family or of the same type, for example in the Romance languages between Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian, etc. Deep transfer (or semantic). This level constructs a semantic representation that is dependent on the source language. This representation can consist of a series of structures which represent the meaning. In these transfer systems predicates are typically produced. The translation also typically requires structural transfer. This level is used to translate between more distantly related languages (e.g. Spanish-English or Spanish-Basque, etc.)
AirPair
AirPair is a service and eponymous company that connects people who need help with programming issues (usually, programmers at small technology companies or at finance companies that use technology products) and people who can help them. Unlike services such as oDesk and Elance, AirPair is not a service for outsourcing programming tasks, but rather a service that facilitates one-off knowledge transfers from people with highly specialized knowledge of particular technology stacks or programming issues to people who are in need of specialized help. == History == AirPair launched in March 2013, with founder Jonathon Kresner, who hails from Australia, working full-time, and it soon hired three other part-time developers to work alongside him. Kresner had previously founded two other startups: Preparty, a social invitation and event-booking service based in Australia, and ClimbFind, an online rock-climbing community that reached a million users. Kresner was inspired to work on AirPair because he saw the need for outside expert assistance with programming issues arise regularly at these startups. In November 2013, founder Kresner describes the company's initial success at bootstrapping itself to "Ramen profitability" in a blog post. In December 2013, AirPair was accepted into the Winter 2014 Y Combinator batch. In March 2014, AirPair announced it would launch partnerships with Stripe, Twilio, and other companies that had their own application programming interfaces, allowing developers having trouble with the APIs to seek help over AirPair from experts on the APIs. AirPair presented at the Y Combinator Winter 2014 Demo Day on March 25, 2014, and successfully raised over $1 million within the next 48 hours. == Reception == A review of AirPair by Will Lam stressed that because payment was based on time rather than results, it was important to use it for clearly thought-out questions where one had high confidence that the session would help. Dennis Beatty, who met AirPair founder Jonathon Kresner in March 2014, wrote in April 2014 a glowing review of AirPair's vision of connecting people and its business success. AirPair has been compared with other peer-to-peer coding help sites such as Codementor and HackHands.
AI Text-to-image Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
In search of the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.