You've been around here long enough to know the answer to that one. If one went to the trouble to gather a mountain of very tangible evidence to make a case against SWAP in Silicon based on PCs or even Intel-based Macs, what would Apple Fans say: "But Apple Silicon/Apple SSD is
" with pokes at "cheap PC SSDs", "weaker SSD SWAP management in Windows" and 3-10 other zingers whether true or false or provable. The evidence itself would be questioned with conspiracies that the tests were run with the outcome in mind to undermine Apple. Apple cannot be wrong about anything, so anything that implies they are must be wrong itself.
Intel Macs generally have upgradable RAM for cheap. Those believing they need more RAM can much more easily buy RAM for relatively little cost vs. gambling on whether SWAPs will be an issue. And for those who DO gamble on SWAP know that should they wear out their SSD, they can replace it in most Intel Macs for what will be a relatively cheap price in the future (unlike Silicon Mac buyers with no replacement options short of buying a whole new Mac). So even the SWAP gamblers can proceed with solid backup plan confidence if they have an
IntelMac.
But how about SWAP stress testing a Silicon Mac now by setting some up to pounding X years of SWAP use as quickly as possible so we can know if this is going to be an issue or not in the present? See the dynamics of something like Geekbench tests where they are deemed accurate and evangelized when Apple wins some measure but need to be recoded and/or are no longer relevant when Apple comes in second or below. Or see the reaction to a poor rating by iFixit in which fans will ridicule the poor grade by arguing against the ability to repair their own stuff. Or see how Consumer Reports is absolutely right and evangelized when they crown something from Apple as "best" but compromised/wrong/antiquated when they crown something from Apple second or lower.
In other words (and just making up this scenario to make a point), somebody runs the stress test and it shows that normal use of SWAP will in fact be 9X% likely to wear out a Silicon Mac in an unacceptable amount of time. Since such test results could impact revenue in the present, Apple would likely question the testing parameters and the fans would run with every point of contention Apple offers... before then making up their own: "Oh tester is probably a PC shill", "analysis paid for by the PC industry", "99.9% of Mac users would not use SWAP as they did in that test", "I've been using minimal specs of Apple tech for 4X years and never had a problem" (so no one else could have problems either), etc.
The same could have been done when Fusion drives were new. I even recall a few people speculating about the negative potential of heavily using the SSD portion of them possibly wearing out before the useful life of those Macs was realized. What happened at the time? Such speculation was shot down as trolling, conspiracy against Apple, etc. And then later as those SSD slice failures proved to be the case with Fusion, denial, redirection to other possibilities before finally SOME acceptance that maybe the Apple Fusion drive was not one of Apple's finest innovations... but only SOME acceptance. See also: Butterfly keyboards. "...probably cheap Chinese chargers/cables." "You're holding it wrong." "That's not a notch, it's more screen R.E. to the left & right" Etc.
So, as offered, this is a wait & see issue or non-issue. If it turns out to be some variation of Fusion 2, it seems likely the best we would ever get out of Apple is "affecting a small number of users" only if pressed there by some kind of class action scenario in which there was real potential for some kind of expensive mass recall & replace. Without Apple admitting to something, fans would defend/redirect to the very end even as their own Silicon Mac fails from SWAP while typing defense & redirects to fellow consumers posts about SWAP issues. 
I don't take a strong position on this topic myself. If it's
MYmoney being spent, my gut guess is to proactively head this one off by buying more RAM up front to minimize SWAP. Whether that is wise or foolishly wasting money because SWAP will not become a problem until beyond the useful life of Silicon Macs is unknown... so far. What I do know for sure about this topic though: by the time this outcome is known, the defense/redirect machine will be beyond ready if needed.
Fellow consumer wanting to buy a new Silicon Mac and reading this thread: if you are worried about this topic, "think different" (for yourself) and pay the hefty premium for more RAM. If:
- the bulk of memory needs are done in RAM, you near fully eliminate any potential of SWAP issues later.
- you gamble on cheapest, don't be surprised if there's some unexpected negatives in taking that added gamble.
- this turns out to be no issue at all and you purchased more RAM, you had years of faster processing in that RAM than those who leaned on SWAP.
If I already own a minimal RAM Silicon Mac, then I just hope for the best on this issue or non-issue (and set aside some money each year for my next Mac).
