You can get really good results from search engines if you know how to use them and are willing to check the sources.
With AI as the search engine, you get what you get. This works well for a lot of searches, but not for everything.
Some engines, like Perplexity, Kagi and Gemini-enabled Google Search, will give you the sources they used in generating its response. This is fine, but for anything moderately complicated, this isn't enough, IMO.
For example: my wife was looking for a way to deter squirrels from eating out of our bird feeder. Gemini told her that we can use spicy bird feed to do this. It also provided a source. Great!
However, when you opened the sourced article, you'll see that Gemini's response completely failed to mention that not only is the spicy bird feed option a mild deterrant at best (squirrels will eat damn near anything if they're desperate enough), but it also failed to mention the two other MUCH BETTER options that were in the article! (Make the feeder free standing on a squirrel-proof pole, and some other option I forgot.)
I'm sure my wife could've told Gemini that the answer was incomplete to get a better response out of it. However, that perfectly underscores the problem I have with the tech in its current state: you're getting some inaccurate representation of the truth while also stealing market share from the authors and companies that shared their knowledge online to begin with.
I also don't think AI search is SEO proof either. People will figure out how to bend Gemini to its will. Given that most people will use natural language queries, the Wendy's [] singularity is almost inevitable.
[] Wendy's, a fast-food chain in the US, has an excellent social media team. I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way of getting every Gemini/Bing OpenAI search to work Wendy's in somehow!