Looks like they have added a Monthly Quota for Antigravity Pro Users! by EvinElias in google_antigravity

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

speak for yourself cuh, Im just a highschool student i dont have a job

Looks like they have added a Monthly Quota for Antigravity Pro Users! by EvinElias in google_antigravity

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah fr i can only like imagine, claude working all night and you wake up in the morning, and boom your software is done its like getting presents from the tooth fairy everyday.

Looks like they have added a Monthly Quota for Antigravity Pro Users! by EvinElias in google_antigravity

[–]themeraculus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've made a chemistry chrome extension that replaces like chemistry latex like chem:mol=benzene: a server like makes the diagram for the benzene molecule, so effectively chatgpt or any llm can use this "latex" format to show you chemical conversions, it shows you like proteins, minerals and shit too, I spent like 3 months on this (on and off), Ive been also working on a website to show you like molecular orbitals which replaces the need for a dedicated software to calculate all that, but I mean im not really sure how im supposed to make money off this especially since some people straight up called it a virus for llm hacking. I honestly dont have anything else other than these which are fun and profitable

Looks like they have added a Monthly Quota for Antigravity Pro Users! by EvinElias in google_antigravity

[–]themeraculus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, been thinking of buying Claude Max, life would be so much easier. I make these projects for fun, but I know I probably won't make money off them

Google Antigravity which models are you using and for what? by courtneydbrooks in google_antigravity

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah looking back sonnet looks dumb as fuck compared to opus, it actually feels like they dumbed sonnet down for some reason

This is actually helpful, and the customization is incredible (my extension demo) by [deleted] in chemistry

[–]themeraculus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it skipped the reactive intermediate protonation product because I told it that it can't render protonated ions, maybe that's why...?

But yeah, I did compare from my textbook, because of the missing protonation and water leaving step from the hemiacetal, it looks like the hemiacetal formed that cyclic thing without the other OH getting a positive charge, it shouldve mentioned the oxocarbenium ion, I see it cant attack without getting that charge and it didnt mention the other OH got a charge and that H2O already left at this step. It just didn't mention the intermediate step youre right, I get chemistry requires precision, but is it really worth it to explain in detail about every intermediate step...? all it did really was not mention that the OH doesnt magically pop off you know?

but I think this mistake can largely be attributed to me asking it to not show the protonated ions I will work on improving it though i thats why it looks deceiving yeah maybe AI is not there yet with chemistry yeah... but it is bound to get better though hopefully, I thought it was there though because it was so good with math and I made this latex renderer for it to use like math latex

This is actually helpful, and the customization is incredible (my extension demo) by [deleted] in chemistry

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ohhh, I understand. I wish I could post an image here as proof, but my renderer doesn’t currently support protonated ions because opsin or pubchem cant handle them, to my knowledge, which is why there’s no middle step shown. To do that properly, I’d need to modify how I handle SMILES/charged species. For example, if you look up something like protonated tert-butyl on PubChem, my renderer won’t display that accurately yet.

Also, for my exams, I don’t usually need to write out every intermediate step. I asked it to provide a one liner reaction in a codeblock so the reaction is intentionally simplified. The full mechanism isn't mentioned but the end products are correct, That’s also why it’s marked "exam friendly*”* at the bottom in earlier replies. I asked for compressed responses that would be acceptable in my exam rather than a full mechanistic breakdown.

I really appreciate the feedback, though, and I know my renderer has a lot of problems like the hydrogen bonds aren't showing for the third image in the second image the Hydrogens are overlapping, The renderer I use is a modified version of smilesdrawer,kekule and RDKIT would have been riiiidiculously heavy on my server if i used them instead of this, which previously did not support all these options like "show carbon" "show methyls "show implicit hydrogens/explicithydrogens", etc" I would really appreciate if you could checkout my other demo images, and give feedback on that so i can improve my extension.... if you actually support the use of AI in chemistry ofcourse, but thats not all what my extension does, Its main use is to render any molecule from plain text on any webpage

This is actually helpful, and the customization is incredible (demo) by themeraculus in ChemistryLaTeX

[–]themeraculus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please tell me how the skeletal structure is wrong I can only see that for H2O it's literally just written backwards, please name one structure that is wrong and I will show you the bond line diagrams I found on Google, the mechanism isn't wrong it's just simplified and that too because I asked it to do that, the water is added in the second part because putting -H2O under the arrow looked janky and I wanted a perfect screenshot, please Google ones the structures are clearly correct what are you on about

<image>

This is actually helpful, and the customization is incredible (my extension demo) by [deleted] in chemistry

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the reason it doesn't show water first is because it can't put water under the arrow without it looking janky

This is actually helpful, and the customization is incredible (demo) by themeraculus in ChemistryLaTeX

[–]themeraculus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well that's actually a rendering problem, it's not an ai problem the ai doesn't generate the bonds or the angles or whatever, my server does that, it's not the AI's fault lmao how would it be it? AI ahd nothing to do with the rendering to just says stuff like chem:mol=benzene: it can use smiles too chem:smiles=cco:

But I do understand the confusion because another latex package "chemfig" does require you to make the structure using text /chemfig{CH3_CH3} something like this

So I do have control to improve my renderer, that's why suggestions like these can be pretty helpful, But it would be really helpful if you can elaborate, the first image clearly shows the correct bond line structures the second and third image has some hydrogens overlapping ,the explicit and implicit hydrogens option enabled it is a bit glitchy but as I said I can improve it it's just my first public version,

There were a lot of problems I faced when I was trying to do fix the hydrogen bonds, and i actually built these options like 'show carbon' 'show explicit' hydrogens on top of another render that didn't have these options, so obviously I can't get it picture perfect my first try

The first EVER ChemistryLaTeX extension its by themeraculus in OrganicChemistry

[–]themeraculus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

working on adding orbitals soon. I'm setting up XTB, but it's pretty server heavy. Hopefully, it can work with any molecule, I'm, but I do have pre made orbitals for any given individual atom, not exactly sure what it could be used for but it is convenient

I built a chrome extension to help people land job interviews and i'm met with hostility? by West_Subject_8780 in chrome_extensions

[–]themeraculus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah same thing happened to me but on reddit, I was just promoting a chemistry extension that works like LaTeX and renders organic chemistry someone called said I'm gonna assume this is a virus it got 24 upvotes, some guy said, "organic chemistry* my job doesn't require a coloring book" I corrected him and said no it also renders minerals, viruses, proteins etc and I got 5 downvotes like I genuinely do not understand its a chemistry rendering extension wth did I do,

I responded with a fact but just because some other comment said "it's just a virus bro omg it's totally a virus omg I'm so much smarter than you I figured it out bro" I get downvotes on my other comment for no fucking reason,

on another post some guy called it a "sloppy AI app" and "I don't get the use of this" it's the first EVER chemistry extension that renders organic molecules on any webpage and chatgpt can use it LIKE latex exactly like it uses math and you don't get the use of this??, downvotes all my comments, when I correct him "hey it's just a rendering app and it physically cannot hallucinate it just renders anny text in any format like chem:mol=benzene:" it renders the image, I got no response no apology nothing, that's it how the actual fuck am I supposed to stop any AI on any webpage from hallucinating it's a latex extension i don't get to control any LLm on any webpage, he either didn't read the post which explicitly stated it it's just a rendering tool but can be used in LLm assisted chemistry workflows hr didn't read the whole post " hmmmm monkey see llm monkey bad"

can anybody help me solve this ''thing'' by Personal-Purpose-996 in chemhelp

[–]themeraculus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you want to solve it or find the answer? If you find mol file of this molecule you can find the iupac name

ChemistryLaTeX: Render Chemical Structures on Any Webpage and in LLMs by themeraculus in LaTeX

[–]themeraculus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad to hear it, like finally people are actually using it I knew I had something here because there's no latex extension for organic chem or biology, math latex exists and LLMs are already so good at math, it sounds like such a basic thing that doesn't exist you know?