On December 26, the Beijing Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau released typical labor dispute arbitration cases for 2025, with one case involving a labor dispute triggered by a company's introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and subsequent elimination of a position attracting significant attention. The arbitration body pointed out that a company terminating a labor contract on the grounds of "AI replacing a position" does not constitute a "significant change in the objective circumstances existing at the time of concluding the labor contract, rendering the contract unable to be performed" as defined by the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. The arbitration commission ruled that the company's action constituted an illegal termination.

It must be noted that this conclusion stems from labor arbitration and is not a court judgment. However, in practice, arbitration serves as the primary adjudication point for the vast majority of labor disputes, holding significant indicative value. Against the backdrop of AI's accelerating integration into the workplace and the absence of stable judicial precedents for related disputes, this case provides a practical reference for balancing technological advancement with labor rights. The arbitration institution attempts to delineate a boundary: companies can upgrade their technology, but they cannot use "technological upgrade" as a legitimate reason for dismissing employees; improvements in corporate efficiency should not be built upon the weakening of workers' rights.

Simultaneously, it is crucial to recognize that technological progress inevitably replaces some human jobs; this is also a vital means for enterprises to enhance efficiency and maintain competitiveness. From the steam engine to the assembly line, from horse-drawn carriages to taxis, from computers to the internet, each wave of technological innovation has reshaped the employment structure. It is foreseeable that "AI job replacement" will become an increasingly common phenomenon in some industries. How to find a new equilibrium between corporate technological transformation and workers' employment rights presents a novel societal challenge and a systematic project requiring collective answers from businesses, government, society, and workers themselves.

For enterprises, compliant transformation is necessary to cushion the impact of replacement. Simply citing "AI job replacement" as a reason for contract termination may seem to reduce labor costs in the short term, but it could lead to greater long-term uncertainty, including frequent labor disputes, arbitration and litigation costs, and associated management risks, which ultimately rebound on the company itself. In fact, termination is not the only path for technological upgrade. Methods such as negotiating changes to labor contracts, internal job reassignments, and skills training to gradually adjust workforce structures, while incurring certain short-term costs, help mitigate legal risks and buffer the shock of technological displacement. This approach respects workers' rights and constitutes rational business management.

Of course, more importantly, society as a whole must build institutional buffers to create better conditions for technological renewal and transformation across all sectors. Current unease about AI often stems not from the technology itself, but from an imbalance between the pace of technological change and society's capacity to adapt. Looking further, a key aspect of the debate around AI is not "whether to develop the technology," but rather "where the technology should be applied first." Assuming highly sophisticated humanoid robots already existed, should they be prioritized for labor-intensive jobs like food delivery, or deployed in areas with chronic human resource shortages, such as elderly care or high-risk operations? The answer is self-evident. The former might boost efficiency short-term but exacerbate employment pressure and social tensions; the latter aligns better with technology's original purpose of "addressing weaknesses and safeguarding basics."

Resolving this dilemma precisely requires leveraging systemic advantages, using the hand of macro-control to "tame" the "dragon" of AI technology. Through industrial policies and regulatory design, technology can be guided to enter areas suffering from labor shortages and higher risks first. It is also important to recognize that while AI replaces traditional jobs, it simultaneously spawns new professional forms. Therefore, there is a need to establish inclusive skills training platforms, offering free retraining for workers in traditional roles, lowering the barriers to skill transition, and alleviating the widespread anxiety caused by an imbalance between "job displacement" and "job creation."

For workers in certain industries, "AI job replacement" is a trend they may have to accept, but that doesn't mean they are powerless. The fundamental path forward lies in maintaining learning capabilities, continuously improving oneself, and transitioning from being part of a group at risk of "being replaced by technology" to becoming proactive professionals who "master technology."

In summary, the ultimate goal of technological progress is to make society operate more efficiently and fairly. However, such progress requires appropriate constraints and guidance to anchor its course towards being "people-oriented." Viewed this way, for enterprises, compliantly advancing technological upgrade is not a "passive concession" but a rational choice to reduce uncertainty and stabilize expectations. For workers, the existence of rules provides necessary buffers for individuals amidst the technological wave. Technology will inevitably alter job structures, but it should not erode the baseline of rules. Above efficiency, space must also be reserved for fairness. Finding the balance point between efficiency and fairness is perhaps the question that labor relations in the AI era will need to answer repeatedly.