Given that it seems every answer to this question is that it is "impossible to predict the outcome of a chemical reaction." Is chemistry just trial and error? Given how fundamental and revolutionary a simulator capable of predicting possible outcomes of a reaction would be, why has it not been done yet? Do you think it will ever happen?
closed as primarily opinion-based by Geoff Hutchison, Jon Custer, Mathew Mahindaratne, Buck Thorn, Poutnik Oct 9 at 14:55
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
It's not an all-or-nothing situation, where either we can reliably prediction reaction products, or we have not tried to.
For instance, drug companies, for many years, have been making extensive use of increasingly powerful, sophisticated, and refined in silico predictive models to choose likely candidates for in vitro testing. And I would be surprised if they've not also begun to develop, evaluate, and incorporate ML.
At the same time, these models are not perfect. So the answer is that it is being done, it's been done for a while, we're getting better and better at it, but we still have a long way to go.
It will be interesting to see what happens with quantum computing, which is currently in its infancy.