I'm not saying Tao is right, but (a) he knows a LOT more about about what's actually important in research math than I do (and probably than you do) (b) he's not just having a knee jerk reaction. Tao has been a major leader and advocate for computer-assisted math, including AI, and I don't think that has really changed. He's advocating for how to do it well. He's far from an AI skeptic protecting his turf. Is there any other person as well-versed in research mathematics AND AI-math as Tao? Maybe a few, but not many.
The dude keeps a continually automatically produced document of his takes on AI. He's not a skeptic overall. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views.html . In this interview the interviewer describes him as an evangelist for AI in math and he doesn't disagree. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views-interview.html
It seems like your inclination is to discount his experience with research mathematics. I agree with you that that's probably what Taleb would do - Taleb has a giant ego and basically operates under the assumption that everyone else has the same giant ego as he does but is (a) less honest about it (b) dumber than he is.