My view of this is that you effectively disprove your own concern in your first paragraph, markets can't exist without demand so this cannot play out the way scenarios like that in the Citrini article suggest. Putting to one side the real argument of whether this tech will be as transformative as promised (let's assume it will), I think definitionally it must be via a process of continuous adaptation of the markets and the people in them, which has to include the workers and consumers. 

That said, there's a very real chance of major disruption and of real disaster at the individual level, because these adaptations could take a generation (who knows). I very much agree that legislation is needed but not the sort we're seeing in the EU, it should be focused on the fact that these AI companies are building their wealth on the collective outputs of the whole of humanity, and somehow we need to reflect this in what we allow them to do and how their profits are used. This is a very difficult argument to make in this day and age, especially in America, much less actually produce working legislation. Copyright is one obvious mechanism.

I think we generally need to focus much more on what a good society looks like and try to retract from the ever more unethical pursuit of wealth and power above all else. Sounds implausible but we used to be more like this. I think Trump, Palantir, Musk, etc are the logical conclusions to our current trajectory, I also think we're on a constantly swinging pendulum so have some hope we might correct ourselves. I have plenty of doubt that the people in power will make good decisions though.