Of course the ideal outcome is the Star Trek post-scarcity utopia. But humans are not currently incentivized in a way that I can see leading to that outcome in our lifetimes.
Sounds like OP is worried that they aren’t going to be able to afford a roof over their head. No government seems to be ready to roll out a plan to deal with huge swathes of the populous suddenly being out of a job because their employer wants bigger profits.
Innovation doesn't always trickle down. Sometimes it works in reverse to exploit the poor and the ignorant.
Workers merely made tools to make their own work processes more efficient which was taken by many corporations and applied across the workforce without the payment of proportional savings to the people who invented it.
The mass adoption of technology funds the future research process thus the profit is diverted from the masses directly to benefit and maintain competitive advantage.
The time saved due to technology never did reduce working hours or increase leisure time of the workforce.
Thus more benefits go up rather than come down.
The benefits of ownership, however, do not.
Ideally, we move to UBI and, as you say, everyone lives like an aristocrat. But we don't get there by trying to hedge against AI taking over our individual jobs.
If you can make the "and" happen, please do.
It's not absolutely certain, and there's more than one possible bad ending if it fails to happen.
Nothing is undesirable about the future you laid out in your comment, except for the fact that it will never ever happen the way you describe (be nice if it did, but I'm not holding my breath). You could have made similar claims about the computer or the internet back in the day, but what we've seen from those technologies is ever increasing concentration of wealth in a few hands, which is what technology does, it centralizes by default. And most human attempts to redistribute wealth on a large scale have been more disastrous than the inequality they were trying to solve.
Note: I don't think this will happen. I think rich people now would rather let people starve so they could save the price of the 15-Second Ad Burger.
We have incentivized sociopaths to run things in the name of efficiency. We will either realize this is a false goal, remove all those people from power and influence, and live in a post scarcity society... Or we will all suffer the consequences.
If the food has a meaningful cost, or the adverts has meaningful revenue, then there is meaningful labour to earn money to pay — directly or indirectly — for the food and/or advertising.
The bottleneck to wealth creation wouldnt be nothing it would be access to natural resources, which is and always has been mediated, ultimately, through violence. Land ownership is mediated by states until they lose their monopoly on violence.
Already the % of wealth that is earned through labor has dropped to record lows. The productivity gains gets swallowed by things like rent, because land has been bottlenecked through excess hoarding.
What happens when labor is commoditized to death and the only value comes from natural resources? Fighting. LOTS of fighting.