There’s something I like to call AI “almost-rightness”, although I’m sure there’s a better term for it out there. It’s a bit like linguistic uncanny valley. It

There’s something I like to call AI “almost-rightness”, although I’m sure there’s a better term for it out there. It’s a bit like linguistic uncanny valley. It’s when a model spits out a seemingly reasonable text, but it’s slightly off in the context. Nothing about it is incorrect, exactly, but it can be odd if you think about it for a second. So the title poses the question of how a product can be so robust with such a small team maintaning it. Yet one of the answers given in the article body is “having a small team”. If you want to point out that such a team size is an asset rather than weakness, then you should work out the argument fully. This way it ends up feeling almost tautological. Yeah, obviously, if you want a small team to work on a big product, one of the ingredients of that approach is a small team… Not saying this article is necessarily AI-generated, but there’s something almost-right about it.