I completely agree that unverified claims create a heavy burden for maintainers. My only point was about the language used: 'disparaging' to me implies a bad-faith attack or a dismissive attitude, whereas this was just an honest technical mix-up that the poster immediately corrected.
I think part of the confusion with that word comes from things like corporate non-disparagement clauses. In those contracts, lawyers write the terms so broad that "disparagement" means saying anything negative, regardless of malice or intent.
Thanks for the discourse. I never meant it to be disparagement nor do I think it really was.
I checked and it turns out I remembered correctly that setting effort and some of its settings are not portable between providers.
There are some different settings that each provider uses and in order for it to be portable, you have to force some defaults on provider A when using a setting that is almost only supported in provider B.
In our implementation we decided to drop a certain setting when using OpenAI in one case and we decided we can just force some other setting when using Anthropic. But this 'solution', might not be what others expect.
When you build an open-source library you can go this opinionated route and force these settings, or you might go the config route and force people to explicitly handle per-provider differences. I will have a look at what I am able to do in terms of a contribution and then in the PR Carmine can decide what they like.
I think part of the confusion with that word comes from things like corporate non-disparagement clauses. In those contracts, lawyers write the terms so broad that "disparagement" means saying anything negative, regardless of malice or intent.