The reason why I don't think this is going to so far removed from other structural transitions(which means, yes, winners and losers exist, but net benefit is ex

The reason why I don't think this is going to so far removed from other structural transitions(which means, yes, winners and losers exist, but net benefit is experienced) comes down to this: AI enables bureaucratic services to be mass-produced. The cost of government programs is often tied to the cost of creating a useful administrative structure. When real humans are involved, they devise fiefdoms, and cost tends to climb. When we try to privatize them, it mostly shuffles around the problem. When you say, "now the AI will do it", there's no specific limitation stopping "it" being the entire planning stage, down to step-by-step instructions for the team on the ground. So when we speak of UBI, welfare, etc. - that's already outdated 20th century stuff. Think bigger. Every citizen gets a personal AI agent attending to their material needs, helping them navigate the laws, know their rights and request assistance. Why wouldn't they? That means that the marketplace - for jobs, consumer goods, etc. - becomes more of an abstraction layer interfaced with by agents. They don't need any specific human interface like a job board or a form to request unemployment benefits. So, the picture of supply and demand rapidly changes away from the blunt instruments of money/wage/tax/investment towards scalpel-like innovations, complex deals that humans could never have negotiated. Among those will be policy programs for issues of poverty and retraining.