Even if you accept the premise that new jobs will be created by the new technologies, there are still risks.
1) The new more-demanding jobs will be beyond the intelligence and abilities of a larger and larger portion of the population. What happens when the computers and robots are smarter than the average bear/human?
2) Even if a person is capable of performing one of these more-demanding jobs, the new jobs will demand that they spend more and more years in training and learning. Without a significant increase in human life-span there will be a point of diminishing returns where a live person spends so much time learning and training that they don't nave enough time to actually work and earn money after that.
3) If the technologies keep accelerating, it's very likely that the machines will become flexible enough and smart enough that they can learn any task faster than a human. Even some "creative" tasks are really just applications of logic and reason (science). At that point the alternatives are between a) a massive redistribution of wealth so that all people share in the bounty created by the robots, b) we ban artificial intelligence or c) if there is any spark of human creativity that is beyond the capabilities of robots and computers, that will be the last refuge of human labor..
But even if we all become painters and singers and mimes, poverty will still be real: 90% of everything created by people is crap. So the creative society is still likely to require a massive redistribution of wealth.
I suppose another alternative is a massive depopulation of the human species on earth. That can easily be accomplished if the struggle for wealth distribution devolves into war.