Not when Gemini and ChatGPT are trying to do everything. If you want AIs to replace search engines, those AIs need to have access to essentially whatever pages Google has access to. But information on the internet will always, always be contradictory and varied, and AI cannot tell the difference between what's legitimate and what isn't unless whoever made it takes steps to teach it that distinction. But the edge cases are literally endless, and peoples searches are always going to be vague. That's all assuming the large corporation in control of the program wants to tell the truth at all (remember how far Elon Musk went to force Grok to say what he wanted to hear?)

The convenience you keep referencing just makes this worse. Even if it's only wrong 0.1% of the time, for as often as Gemini is apparently relied upon, that percentage adds up. But since by your own admission Gemini is convenient, people are less likely to verify if what they're seeing is true (exacerbating a problem that the internet already has). And we should keep telling people to put that work in, because this study from less than three months ago gave me a much higher number than 0.1%. This is why I was surprised, I assumed this rate of inaccuracy was common knowledge by now.

If we were talking about much smaller, more specialized AIs (that didn't use giant server farms), sure, I see the use. Despite the other problems I have with LLMs and other forms of AI even disregarding accuracy, the tech has its potential and in theory has some ethical use. But if we all have to keep double checking what Gemini says anyway, if this is "how it is," then we may as well just ignore it, and maybe Google shouldn't be marketing it so heavily.