Not necessarily. Internet search algorithms were designed to solve the discoverability problem. LLMs are generative, they're creating content rather than finding it for you.

They also serve a different business model. Sure you can have ads in LLM answers similar to Google search results, but Google is also selling clicks. LLMs are designed and used, at least today, to give you the answer so you don't need to see an original source.

Beyond that, the idea of a generative algorithm being used in tandem with sponsored results sounds pretty gross in my opinion. I already don't like Google's approach to search results, but if they're also generating the responses on the fly why am I even there? Its only a matter of time before the generative algorithm is trained specifically to drive more sponsorship revenue, maybe by making up content that works better for ad bids or stuffing a reference to a sponsor into a response only because the inline ad pays or converts better.

Seems like the option is constantly retrain an LLM or give it enough tools to interact with new data as needed. For the foreseeable future LLM's are going to need RAG or huge context windows which are effectively equivalent to RAG because you are isolating from some giant corpus your useful information you want the machine to meaningfully interact with.

It still seems like a different use case to me, but maybe I'm wrong there.

I don't mind a search algorithm including a summary as long as its true to the original, but I really don't want any generated content that's trying to predict how someone would answer my question. If LLMs end up replacing most of the use of tools like Google Search we really have moved past the discovery problem and don't necessarily want to find or see the original (human authored) content at all.