I don't think we'll ever get to "no gods no masters" because, sadly, there will always be a need to arbitrate disputes. That is, at its core, the fundamental role of "state" in fact, and that won't ever go away. You can give it any name you want, and it can be powered by Human Brains or AI Computers, it will still be "the state."
As for economics, capitalism has morphed over the years. It's not ownership of capital that is the problem with modern capitalism, because individual ownership of capital does empower the individual and gives them some agency in the world. The problem with capitalism is in fact the problem the communism - it's the collective ownership of capital that is the problem. A single individual person can't really abuse the capital they can utilize - it's only when you allow an individual or small (relative to total population) group to control massive amounts of capital without having to actually use it. Corporations are no better than "the state" in this regard; it's just a different name. After all, a state is just a form of corporate entity.
Consider a modern major shareholder - they "own" capital, but don't actually use it. They "allow" others to use it on their behalf. And I can tell you even Elon Musk doesn't use his capital - if he didn't have a literal city-state of employees, nothing would get done. Musk doesn't produce anything - he inspires (I'm taking a traditional definition of "do" - inspiring is an action, but it's not a productive action* - charisma doesn't grow crops). (And that's not even getting into the fact that currency isn't really capital, even though it's given that label: capital is land, resources, machines, education; the things that let you be productive.)
So part of a solution to the capitalism dilemma would be to limit ownership. As a rough measure, I'd put the number at $10M in today's dollars - that's effectively one or two lifetimes of economic activity (100 years x $100k/year). So you can do whatever you want but once you hit $10M, you can't get / control any more.
As to how AI would fit in there - I don't know, because AI at some point has to result in actual physical effects to benefit humanity; this means there are limits to what it can do, because at the end of the day, all AI would eventually hit the "I canna change th' laws o' physics, Captain!" limit.
*There is indeed value associated with being able to inspire people, but value is different than wealth. You can inspire people all you want, but if those people don't go and actually grow food and build infrastructure and perform services in their community, that inspiration is worthless.