Why is that problematic?
Personally, I want to be a master to my mechanical slaves (tools, dishwashers, computers, robots) and can't wait for a future where machine-slavery is so pervasive that no humans need to work anymore.
The term "machine" is perfectly fine. You're actually choosing to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. Please stop.
Why would the machines continue to feed us if we're dead weight to the economy?
Likewise for social security and state-run unemployment insurances.
AI is coming in the form of industry automatization, in a very competitive, capitalist framework. Agriculture and resource extraction is also being automated.
Capital is literally growing a brain, and once it doesn't need us it will stop feeding us, and we'll be powerless against it because we are so dependent on it. Think of a spider shedding its dead skin after molting.
If automation will make agriculture more competitive, then food will get cheaper. Governments will be able to subsidise it.
Capital needs consumers to make a profit.
Politics will solve any kind of food crisis. Otherwise there will be a revolution.
Fundamentally, demand is survival instinct, which develops under Darwinian pressure. B2B is already growing faster than B2C. Wages are globally stagnating while capital keeps on growing. The industry as a self-maximizer can be its own consumer.
> Governments will be able to subsidise it. [...] Otherwise there will be a revolution.
This assumes that humans will still have some kind of power. Being somewhat competitive in the job market is the only power most people have today.