To me it reminds me of the advent of scholarly databases. The main effect I saw is that researchers started using exclusively those databases, sometimes publisher specific databases (so they were citing only from one publisher!) and were missing all the papers that were not indexed there. In particular a big chunk of the older literature that wasn't yet OCRed (it is better but still not fabulous). This led to so many "we discovered a new X" paper that the older people in the crowd in conferences were always debunking "that was known since at least the 60s". While those AI tools can clearly help with initial discovery around a subject, it worries me that it will reduce the search in other databases, or the digging into paper references. It is often enlightening to unravel references and go back in time to realize that all recent papers were basing their work on a false or misunderstood premise. Not talking about the cases where the citation was copied from another paper and either doesn't exist or had nothing to do with the subject. There was a super interesting article about the "mutations" of citations and how you could, by using similar tools to genetic alysis, generate an evolutionary tree of who copied on who and introduced slight errors that would get reproduced by the next one.

edit: various typos