You touch on a topic that receives little attention, and personally I believe it poses a greater risk to global stability than climate change, ISIS or anything else people choose to fret about. The western economies are built on a standard of living built on ever increasing productivity. But that only works as long as markets expand faster than productivity, when productivity rises faster than demand, employment falls. The quantum leaps in productivity brought about by AI will accelerate this on a global scale, leaving billions of people scraping by for their very survival in its wake. In the end, its unsustainable, since impoverished people can’t buy the products produced by this coming world. Also, billions of idle, destitute people will form an ideal growth mechanism for various forms of radicalism, which will bring the entire edifice crashing down — it will be very ugly.
I do not believe that public ownership of the means of production, or AI itself (whatever that is) is the answer. History has proven that approach simply replaces an oligarchy with a plutocracy (think of the politburo of the old Soviet Union). An alternative approach would be to develop a tax scheme that discourages productivity, possibly something that is steeply progressive based on revenue per employee. It needs to be steep enough that the tax consequences outweigh any economic advantage from increased automation, and it needs to be global.
It is also a fact that anything done will have unintended consequences, since human behavior will also change in response to any changes in the regulatory or tax environment. It would be interesting to build some concepts into a widely played game (something like sim city), and see how people behave.