You will be fine even with 1GiB (and likely less) of swap. My work computer typically uses no more than 140-150 MiB. A gigabyte is plenty of over-provisioning for that.
Unless you do compute tasks that require datasets in the hundreds of gigabytes and (this one is important!) data is accessed in a more or less access-once fashion, you will never want to have a swap much larger than that. But then again, simply memory mapping a datafile works equally well for that application.
But more swap helps more, right? More of anything is always better!
Consider what difference a swap of, say, 16GiB will make (or think of 64GiB). If you never use these 16GiB, you could as well not have them set aside in the first place. But if you do use them, what happens? Disk, compared to main memory, is exceedingly slow. Even with a SATA-600 SSD, transferring 16GiB takes between 30 and 40 seconds, and 2-4 times as long on some other configurations.
Now someone will inevitably object that you are rather paging in and out a dozen or so 4kiB pages, not 16GiB in one go. While that is true, the point nevertheless stands. If you only need to swap in and out a couple of pages, you don't need 16GiB of swap, but if you do need 16GiB of swap, then you are going to transfer them, too (one way or another).
In theory, 99.9% of all users could even use a 64GiB machine (or any 8+GiB machine) without any swap, and most likely never notice something missing. However, this is not adviseable.
First, it is sub-optimal because the operating system has fewer choices in what it can discard when it runs out of physical memory. There are two things it can do: Swap out something that isn't used, or throw away pages from the buffer cache. If you have no swap, there is only one thing it can do. Throwing away pages from the buffer cache is harmless, but it may noticeably impact performance.
Second, private anonymous mappings might simply fail if there is no swap. That usually won't happen, but eventually when there is not enough physical memory available to satisfy them all, and there is no swap, the operating system has only either this choice, except...
Third, the dreaded OOM killer may kick in. Which means a more or less random process gets to get killed. No thank you. This is not something you want to have happening.
With that said, advice such as you need a swap X times the amount of RAM installed comes from people who repeat something they heard (and didn't understand!) from someone who repeated something they heard (and didn't understand!) decades ago.
The "use 2X your RAM" rule was an easy to remember rule of thumb in the 1980s and 1990s, it was never the "golden truth" (just something that worked OK for most users), and it doesn't apply at all nowadays.
You should have a reasonable amount of swap which you can easily afford (say, a gigabyte), so the OS can page out some stale stuff, and so the world doesn't immediately end when you once ask for a little more memory. But that's it.