Not a public CFTE level. Represents workers below the AI-literacy threshold (internal Band 0).
Outgoing CEO Piyush Gupta (Feb 2025): DBS expects AI to reduce the need to renew ~4,000 temp/contract roles over three years. A workforce category, not a proficiency level.
Does Not (Score 1): avoids using AI tools even when prompted. Sometimes (Score 2): occasional use with limited impact for simple tasks.
OneOrigin's live Technical Recruiter posting frames the role as expecting comfort with AI, automation and data.
L0 Disengaged. Sometimes uses ChatGPT. These people likely won't be at the company long-term.
Krishna's May 2023 Bloomberg interview estimated ~30% of IBM's ~26,000 back-office roles could be replaced by AI over 5 years. IBM has publicly denied a blanket hiring pause.
Lutke's memo (7 Apr 2025) introduced reflexive AI use as a company-wide baseline expectation. Employees who do not use AI reflexively fall below the memo's stated baseline.
Uses AI to tighten emails or summarise meetings; priority routing and judgment work are unchanged and there is no repeatable workflow or measurement.
Uses AI only for one-off tasks, not as part of regular workflows. Does not integrate AI into how work is planned, executed or delivered.
Uses AI for basic support tasks: summarising reports or explaining concepts. Tries AI for analysis but doesn't rely on it.
Uses AI occasionally for partner comms and to draft partner emails or materials. Tries AI for research but not embedded in workflow.
Uses AI for basic research only, like to summarise companies or markets. Tries AI for diligence but doesn't rely on it.
Uses AI occasionally for note cleanup, summaries and light analysis, but doesn't rely on it. Cannot point to evidence that reporting is faster or decisions are better.
Uses AI-generated call summaries after meetings and to draft outreach emails. Can't describe how AI has changed their win rate, deal velocity or pipeline quality.
Uses AI for background research before drafting but the core review process is unchanged. Cannot point to evidence that reviews are faster or higher quality.
Manually does work AI could meaningfully assist with and hasn't tested whether AI would improve it. Actively blocks their team from experimenting with AI.
Uses AI for first drafts only. Output reads like unedited AI; hasn't developed a process for improving quality or adapting tone.
Asks AI one-off questions to look something up, then goes back to doing work the same way. AI is a slightly faster Google, nothing more.
Uses AI for simple tasks like summarizing, writing or looking up information, but output reads like obvious AI slop. Cannot point to clear evidence that work is faster or higher quality.
Uses AI as a lightweight assist inside a mostly unchanged workflow; helps with snippets, debugging or summarization but does not materially change how they design, build, test or ship.