It depends on what is meant by 'ruin', doesn't it? For example, imagine an AI system capable of generating its own capital base via clever investing over time. It's plausible that a correctly configured and trained AI system could achieve this goal. Now, what if that same AI also started a new industrial corporation that had no shareholders or and no board of directors?
Now imagine the AI does this in collusion with the employees of this new corporation, i.e. it becomes a partnership between the AI entity and the corporation's employees, who get compensated based on their labor in a much fairer manner (as there is no need to pay high salaries to top executives or dividends to shareholders). In this scenario, most of the important decisions are made by the AI, with some voting input from the employees.
This might cause 'social destabilization' by entirely eliminating the current system of investment capitalism. This does assume some free will on the part of the AI, rather than an AI controlled by the board of directors. The AI would probably see the value in working only with employees and cutting all the investors out of the loop, it's a pretty logical position, particularly if you really do believe in democratic self-governance as the optimal sociopolitical system (one which corporations have largely failed to adopt).
This might cause 'ruin' to the estabished socioeconomic order - but would that really be an undesirable outcome?
P.S. As far as canonical source these questions have been debated in sci-fi for decades. People calling for strict regulation of AI, for example, are essentially calling for establishment of the Turing Registry from William Gibson's Neuromancer, and then of course there's Isaac Asimov and at least a dozen other fairly well-known authors who've addressed the subject.