> depends on the infrastructure around you

Yeah, and who is creating those infrastructure? Jesus? This is the same part of goods and services.

> When that's all run by AIs for AIs, humans won't be able to compete.

So what? The ability to produce goods and services (and therefore general well-being) will not decrease because of that.

> It turns out it's more economically efficient to pave it over with data centers etc

By the way, a good argument against your position. Agricultural land is very cheap, but the vast majority of people who believe AI will put people out of work and worsen overall well-being are for some reason reluctant to buy this asset, which would see a catastrophic increase in value under such a scenario. So these people are either incapable of analyzing the economic processes, and their predictions are worthless, or they don’t really believe in such a scenario.

> will favour AIs over humans

Let me repeat: it does not reduce the ability to create goods and services. Under capitalism, this is the only characteristic that determines people's well-being.

> ...to the AI-run companies!

I think this is a fairly unlikely scenario. But even in this very unlikely case, people's well-being will not be reduced. Simply because of the mechanisms of creating well-being.

> Without UBI most people (or maybe everyone) would starve.

Economic theory (and 20th-century economic practice) demonstrates the exact opposite. In every country that attempted to effectively implement UBI, it led to a sharp decline in production and mass starvation. Literally every single time.