I was sadly not quite imaginative enough to consider radioactive worm eggs, but I do seem to recall Ivan Inkling opening up an ice cream shop at one point and Max E. Mum and his sister Minnie coming in to consider all the different flavor combinations they could buy.

I used to be a teacher, and I kept a list of funny names that I would use for word problems and the like. Just silly stuff like Ivan Inkling, Chris P. Bacon, Millie Peade, etc.

Why do they need to work, though? If AI can replace so many people that there aren’t jobs for them all, wouldn’t that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not? At that point, why must society continue to expect everyone to support themselves if society’s developments as a whole make that unnecessary?

OP’s question seemingly indicated that they felt someone who couldn’t earn money was immediately a net negative to society. I don’t believe that’s true now (stay at home parents are a good, but far from only, example), and I can’t see me believing it’s any more true in a future where AI can replace large segments of the workforce.

Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling, why do you assume that that immediately makes them a negative to society? Is a person’s entire value predicated on their ability to earn money?