We could end up with a society wherein a tiny number of owners of capital have everything they can dream of, and the remaining billions starve. But given the number of warnings we have had, and given the decline of feudalism in the last five centuries, if we did end up in such a dystopia, we would only have ourselves to blame.
I don’t think that is possible. A tiny number of owners of capital depend on people to buy the products that their capital, in conjunction with paid labor, makes possible.
Do they? Why?
If everyone is starving, they will starve, too.
To take the ultimate extreme case, imagine that there are a few hundred Star Trek replicators that can make anything - food, houses, cars, clothes, yachts, you name it, they can do it.
If you own one, you can make, for your own use, literally anything you want, at any time.
How do you starve in this scenario?
Why do you want or need to sell anything to the masses in this scenario?
When you don't need the labour of the masses, you don't need their money, either.
The two hundred "rich" people in that scenario can choose to make enough of everything for everyone; Or just enough for themselves, and let the rest of humanity starve. They have no financial motive to do either; Money is meaningless unless you need to trade in order to obtain things - and if you have one of these machines, you don't need to trade, you just need to say "Tea, Earl Grey, hot".
Of course, in a less extreme case, your machine might not do everything; Perhaps yours only makes food and drinks. Between them, the two hundred machines worldwide can do everything, though. So you need to trade with the other owners of the means of production - the other 199 capitalists. Why do you and your 199 friends need to trade with the eight billion starving peasants, though?