Journal articles, institutional/national/international guidance documents, and LinkedIn posts alike call on staff in higher education to gain, and/or improve their, ‘AI literacies’. The discourse around how to deal with the emergence of this glut of innovative, disruptive, and rapidly evolving technologies centre around: inevitability, in that the technology is already here, the students are already using it, staff should, or even must, accept these technologies and engage with these technologies. Discourse also frequently acknowledges the ethical issues accompanying different AI tools, while in the same breath saying that their use is both unavoidable and desirable. Non-engagement is is now being framed as an extreme, irresponsible position to take; individual responsibility, in that exploring and establishing ways of integrating these technologies into teaching and learning practices falls to each individual as part of their professional responsibilities; limited systemic accountability, in that the role of the institution is limited to generating policy and high level guidance, providing the typically limited degree of training and educational development in teaching and learning, and setting expectations for individual staff to develop their own capacity. As was the case before this particular ed-pocolyse, for example with the pivot to remote teaching during COVID-19, the discourse on AI technologies in higher education is frequently divorced from discussions of existing institutional digital competency frameworks and related, strategic, resourced capacity building for staff and students. Most of the ideas and proposed interventions in this space are doomed to fail as they are constructed on the shaky foundations of existing, dysfunctional dynamics in higher education. This is to say that higher education staff typically do not need to have a particular level of training or expertise in teaching and learning to be hired, and then do not have to attain any particular level when in their role, with their professional development left as a voluntary, individual endeavour. The literature is clear on higher education staff typically having overwhelming workloads, with accompanying high levels of stress and burnout, and therefore do not have a great deal of time to put into professional development, even when so motivated. Career progression pathways typically do not motivate staff to engage in time consuming professional development in the teaching and learning domain, for example, in academic roles promotion processes typically motivate staff to put more attention on the research domain. This presentation proposes an alternative, radically boring approach for how higher education staff can be positioned to be able to approach any technology, including new, innovative, and disruptive technologies, in their teaching and learning work. This approach is grounded in existing models of staff capacity building and a rejection of the nonsensical idea that higher education staff capacity is magically infinite.