Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

Part A — Artificial Intelligence and human-kind, in 2 sentences.

Hey, I am the inventor of ‘non-beliefism’, a paradigm that underlines science’s great importance, and rejects the concept of belief (not merely rejection of religious belief, but rejection of belief in anything altogether — as belief by definition opposes science, especially concerning non-evidence).

Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably exceeding humans in cognitive tasks, and some projections observe human level brain power in artificial machines/software by at least 2020 (Wikipedia exascale computing source).

Artificial Intelligence is already solving many of human kind’s problems (eg-1: Ai beat human doctors at predicting heart attacks); artificial intelligence is helping to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos (as scientists aim to do) — (eg-2: Ai can already recreate Nobel prize winning level work), and so artificial general Intelligence likely need be human kind’s last universally important invention.

Part B — Crucial difference between Edward and Tegmark

Edward Witten is quite the human being/physicist.

Max Tegmark is also, quite the human/cosmologist.

Both have phd physics degrees.

The urgent difference?

(1) Max presents consciousness as a mathematical problem… Although Max Tegmark is not an artificial intelligence pioneer nor is officially trained as an artificial intelligence researcher, Max is already contributing important work, helping to organize the theory of deep learning (A hot paradigm in Artificial Intelligence now).

A sample of Max’s AI work:

Max describing consciousness as a mathematical problem:

(2) Edward Witten believes we will never truly understand consciousness…

Part C — How components approached by Edward’s genius applies in AI today

Edward Witten’s work concerns some deep stuff on manifolds. (Sample:

In artificial intelligence, models are observed to be doing some form of manifold representation, especially in the euclidean regime. (And are already demonstrated to be strong candidates for ‘disentangling problems’ of which many problem spaces occur)

As an unofficial AI researcher myself, I am working on AI, as it relates to super-manifolds.(I recently invented something called ‘thought curvature’, involving yet another invention of mine called the ‘supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning’, built atop manifold learning in deep learning)

So I happen to have a brief, concise description somewhere, where manifolds are shown to non-trivially relate to artificial intelligence (you can see also Deep Learning book by bengio, or Chris Olah’s manifold explanation):

Some number of months ago, I had personally contacted Witten, advising him that his genius could apply in AI. (No response though)

Note that it is not merely that Witten failed to respond. Regardless of my email to him, Witten is ignoring evidence; for components in his work apply empirically in machine learning.

Why does Edward Witten allow his belief (as shown in the video above) to block himself from possibly considerably contributing to artificial intelligence, one of human-kind’s most profound tools, even despite contrasting evidence that manifolds apply in machine learning?