I think the use of AI is really missing the point here. The point is that small in-house teams can deliver a lot more quickly and to a higher quality and at a lower cost than large outsourced teams from the big consultancy companies. I've seen this over and over again (the problem is that large organisations often prefer to go the slow and expensive route with the big consultancy companies for a complex variety of reasons). So it would be like an article saying "our small inhouse team using VS Code did a much better job than a big outsourced consultancy using MS Visual Studio - isn't VS Code awesome".

> I think the use of AI is really missing the point here. The point is that small in-house teams can deliver a lot more quickly and to a higher quality and at a lower cost than large outsourced teams from the big consultancy companies.

This assumes that small in-house teams are inherently effective/efficient, which is not necessarily true.

In this sense, the difference between proven engineering leads (as the article states/assumes) leading a small team versus AI is that the latter is entirely under their control, which minimizes the risk.

So AI vs. small teams is about controlling/guaranteeing effectiveness/efficiency.