Pauling vs. ChatGPT Deep Research

Pauling runs real computational chemistry -- UniDock, GROMACS, ADMET pipelines, PoseBusters validation -- on actual molecular structures. ChatGPT Deep Research can summarize papers and suggest molecules, but it cannot run a docking simulation. The difference between reading about drug discovery and doing drug discovery.

Category Pauling ChatGPT Deep Research
Molecular dockingUniDock (GPU-accelerated Vina) -- real scoring functions, ranked posesCannot run docking; can only describe docking concepts
Molecular dynamicsFull GROMACS MD with save/resume, ligand parameterization via ACPYPECannot run MD; can discuss simulation theory
ADMET predictionIntegrated ADMET profiling pipeline on computed hitsCan summarize ADMET rules of thumb, no actual prediction
Compound screening10M+ compounds via Cloud Dataflow auto-scalingCannot screen compounds -- no molecular computation
File handling (PDB/SDF)Automatic conversion between PDB, PDBQT, SDF, MOL2, CIF, SMILESCannot parse or manipulate molecular structure files
Binding energy calculationMM-PBSA from explicit MD trajectoriesCannot compute binding energies
Pose quality controlPoseBusters + MolProbity validationNo structural validation capability
Literature researchBasic -- focused on computational executionExcellent -- deep web search, paper synthesis, citation tracking
Hypothesis generationGuided by simulation results and binding dataStrong -- can reason across papers, suggest novel targets
Actual computationEvery result from real physics-based simulationZero -- generates text about science, not scientific data
InfrastructureCloud GPUs, auto-scaling workers, no installationRuns on LLM inference only -- no HPC or molecular software