> I think, aggregation, extraction and emulgating is something else.

Aggregating information, extracting underlying concepts, and combining those concepts into a unified expression is indeed the vernacular meaning of "synthesis" applicable to this discussion.

"Emulgating" is not a conventional English word. Is it a misspelling of "emulating"? I ask because using the term "emulating" here would again represent an instance of question begging, i.e. implicitly asserting the position that what's being discussed is merely the paraphrasing of singularly sourced information, and not the unification of concepts expressed in multiple sources, which I again believe is the very thing we are debating.

> And we have built a complex framework around this and for this. The fact that many feel that this framework is violated should hint at there being a problem, a conceptual discrepancy.

I don't think there necessarily is a problem or conceptual discrepancy here, any more than there has been for all of the centuries that people have been debating epistemology. The problem here is the same as for humans, and reduces to a rationalism vs. empiricism debate. AI tools are pure rationalists, and are solely capable of reasoning. However, many people behave this way as well, and exhibit a rationalist epistomology, even having emotional entanglements with their axioms to the point that they'll bend over backwards to reject evidence that falsifies empirical conclusions drawn from those axioms.

My biggest fear from AI is not that it isn't capable of inductive reasoning -- that's all it's capable of, as I see it -- but rather that the fact that its reasoning has no empirical anchor will lead people who are mired in rationalist epistemology to accept its conclusions uncritically.

In other words, the danger doesn't come from the fact that AI has no semantic awareness, but that people using it aren't seeking semantic validation in the first place, which is a problem already pervasive in our society.