In regards to the question posed, and in the belief that chemists develop an inherent sense of what con-stitutes a desirable compound over their careers, we set out to present a fairly simple, and intentionallyambiguous prompt: "Which of these two compounds do you prefer?". We asked chemists to imagine an early virtual screening campaign setting (accounting for simple aspects such as oral availability and small molecular profile, but no other modalities such as covalency or bifunctional compounds) where they needed to decide which compound to follow up between two. The question was designed so that participants did not spend a significant amount of time evaluating each presented pair of compounds, while being generic enough so that one of the compounds could be discarded according to a non-defined "gut feeling" chemical preference. This could include druglikeness, synthetic accessibility or other criteria inherent to the pair of the compounds presented in each choice. We note that the question choice can be seen as an oversimplification of the problem, and that in other drug discovery scenarios, additional details on the presented prompt would be needed for clarification. Especially in real-life setups, these details would typically include aspects like existing ADMET or activity data, or bespoke predictive models for those endpoints.