Remove legacy GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k via OpenAI API

[PeterDaveHello]

Groq removed it and replaced with Llama 3 since 25 April.

Reference:

• https://twitter.com/GroqInc/status/1783235427916251464

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
chatall	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	May 14, 2024 4:28pm

[sunner]

Directly remove code will break app since legacy data can't be parsed right.

Could you just kindly add it to the disabled list? Someday later, we can remove it in a whole.

Disabled list:

ChatALL/src/bots/index.js

Lines 171 to 181 in 9b73005

	const disabled = [
	"ClaudeBot",
	"AlpacaBot",
	"HuggingChatBot",
	"Falcon180bBot",
	"ChatGLM6bBot",
	"ChatGLM36bBot",
	"CodeLlamaBot",
	"Vicuna7bBot",
	"Wizardlm13bBot",
	];

[PeterDaveHello]

Maybe the solution is to fix the parse method?

[sunner]

Maybe the solution is to fix the parse method?

Do you mean fix the parse method in the chat view? If so, there are two solutions:

1. Filter out the messages from removed bots
2. Depends other code to show the messages correctly

Solution 1 looks like data loss. Solution 2 will lead to duplicate code. IMO, disable the removed bot in the bots menu is the best solution.

What do you think?

[PeterDaveHello]

I prefer not to keep legacy and deprecated codes or naming in the project. It'll make the maintenance complexity much higher and also make it harder for new contributors to join. That's also why I want #780.

[sunner]

I understand your concern. How about moving the legacy codes to a legacy folder and totally remove them several months or years later?

[PeterDaveHello]

Yeah, I also got your point, the legacy folder could be a workaround, though I doubt how many users will keep all those old bots conversations, considering the AI evolutions are currently so fast, most users will use the newer models, and this currently broken bots didn't cause obvious bug reports, maybe we can just remove it after a month? Anyway, I can close this PR if the workaround is something we both think is possible.