Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

Co-Founder @BuildCoherence | Building Axiom to elevate logical discourse and knowledge 🚀 | Husband of @RealMetaBias coherencelabs.net USA Joined February 2026

Tweets

358
Followers

41
Following

50
Likes

742

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

46 minutes ago

@mathyouf @DefenderOfBasic @workflowsauce @kaefairy_ @TheVatStack We are aiming to have our beta out at the end of the month. For more about our goals and guiding principles, check out coherencelabs.net

1 0 0 8 0

View Details

Sure! First, I have to give a bit of a background. Roughly speaking, Axiom is a social media platform where the only content you can post is formally verified logic. This sounds intimidating, but it's really not! Formalized DOES NOT mean precise, and the finicky bits are handled by LLMs. I'll use the concept of love, because it's one of those things that "can't be formalized". You can talk about love in formal logic without having to know exactly how to define it; you simply assert properties that you care about, over time as you need them. For example, you might say "if x loves y, then x spends some time thinking about y". You could also take a transitive view of love and say "if you love someone, you love everyone they love". We can use these rules to provably deduce things that follow from those properties, and even find where your definitions are inconsistent.

1 0 1 3 0

View Details

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

6 hours ago

These are exactly the sort of propositions that users in Axiom will be able to assert. We are aiming to make it easy to query aggregations so y'all can get real data on which "blue chip" props people are most willing to adopt. Not only that, people can adopt inference rules that bind certain meanings to those props. This allows us to distinguish syntactical agreement from semantic agreement. That's the difference between us both supporting "free speech" but disagreeing on a law regarding when speech should be criminal. Mechanically, that looks e.g. like the following: A person adopts both A: ("All people are capable of goodness") and B: (A → "Everyone should be given a chance at rehabilitation"). While some else adopts A but doesn't adopt B, or even rejects B by adopting ¬B. They agree on the syntax but not the semantics.

1 0 2 13 0

View Details

Kristie Cymbaluk @RealMetaBias

a day ago

Natural language has increasingly approximated formal logic over time. The end state is that the base language is formal logic.

0 1 2 17 0

View Details

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

a day ago

Do we even what aligning superintelligence means?

0 0 1 35 0

View Details

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

a day ago

@EZR4P0UND @QiaochuYuan What would it mean to deduce if it's not a formal system?

0 0 0 18 0

View Details

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

2 days ago

In short, it looks like moving to formal logic. A claim or argument is meaningful iff it has a logical representation. The two main barriers are how to transition incrementally and who decides the axioms. Our upcoming product @BuildCoherence solves both. How it looks visually isn't a set thing. With a formal structure in hand, we can programmatically generate all sorts of visualizations. Argument flow charts and Euler diagrams are two great ones: x.com/SemanticSamuel…

Sam Cymbaluk @SemanticSamuel

4 weeks ago

In Axiom, arguments are proven valid in Lean. Here, if you accept the 6 premise nodes, you must accept the conclusion. The point is not that this is a perfect argument, it's that we can use this imperfect argument to pinpoint where our reasoning needs to be improved. Readers in

6 days ago

@swdevservice @SurpriseHangman @MasterTimBlais The fewest axiomatic constraints would be to leave the substrate (in)dependence of consciousness unconstrained.