Your evidence is vastly inferior. It's not even substantial enough to base a hypothesis on. One slideshow and you build a whole headcanon around how viciously egotistical he is.
not to mention his stance on AI isn't even egotistical? Regarding AI in math, it's quite reasonable: math isn't about solving theorems. It's about conceptual understanding. Until LLMs actually are capable of conceptual understanding, they don't threaten mathematicians.
It's just like with art: they can make pretty pictures, but LLMs aren't making art.
personally i feel like you're resisting what im saying because it challenges your view of Tao and you're reluctant to reconsider it .. maybe im wrong, but dismissing what im saying as "not substantial" without actually engaging with the points doesnt exactly help your case .. it comes across more like you're determined to defend him regardless of the merits of the criticism, which is hardly logical and arguably looks like motivated reasoning ...
ps: saying AI images arent art but just "pretty pictures" is just cringey ... if it evokes emotion, provokes thought or creates an aesthetic experience, its art ... i mean im sure u have a pair of sports trainers and jackets .. that are made by a machine using synthetic fibers and not artistically hand crafted ... and ppl do view fashion as an art form ..