Image by Grok
Me And My Buddy Grok
So I had been pretty much resisting consciously using artificial intelligence. Then Lucien Gauthier of the Boston Tax Institute told me that he had been using Grok. I really admire Lu and that prompted me to give it a try. Grok would not have been my first choice, if I had decided independently to check out artificial intelligence, but so it goes. I have been quite pleased with the results. In terms of serious use I have had Grok to proofread, fact check and critique my articles. I always tell it not to rewrite. I have also used it to find cases. I will tell you about my non-serious use if we ever get together for beers.
All About Me
Being incredibly self-absorbed I have also asked Grok about where I stand in the tax blogosphere and for overall evaluations of my work. I have a pretty common name, but Grok tells me that I am the most famous Peter J Reilly and the fourth most famous Peter Reilly. I really hope to some day edge out the top Peter Reilly who is very close in age to me
Peter Reilly (born c. 1955) – Best known for being wrongfully convicted in 1973 at age 18 for the murder of his mother, Barbara Gibbons, in Connecticut. He confessed after intense interrogation but recanted, and was exonerated in 1976 after new evidence emerged and community support, including from figures like Arthur Miller. The case inspired a book by Joan Barthel and a 1978 TV movie, A Death in Canaan. Today, he advocates for reforms in police interrogation methods to prevent false confession
I remember somebody taping something that included the headline “Did Peter Reilly Murder His Mother” to my dorm room door – Clark 231 if I remember rightly at the College of the Holy Cross. Anyway I have read that there are problems with AI sycophancy, so I asked Grok what was wrong with the writing of Peter J Reilly on Forbes.com, Think Outside The Tax Box and this platform. Here is what I got.
Peter J. Reilly is a CPA and long-time Forbes contributor specializing in tax topics, often blending practical advice with humor and explorations of how taxes intersect with broader issues like religious liberty or social equity. He also runs the blog “Your Tax Matters Partner” and has contributed to or associated with “Think Outside the Tax Box,” which focuses on innovative tax strategies and insights. His writing typically draws from over 40 years of professional experience, aiming to make dense tax concepts more approachable through real-world examples, court case analyses, and occasional lighthearted commentary.
Overall, his style is praised for clarity (breaking down jargon like estate planning tools—e.g., SLATs, GRATs, CRUTs), engagement (via anecdotes and humor), logical structure (starting with overviews and building to key takeaways), and impact (offering actionable lessons for readers). For instance, articles on topics like IRS rulings, conservation easements, or parsonage allowances often highlight overlooked implications while maintaining an accessible tone.
However, some readers and critics have pointed out potential flaws, particularly in pieces perceived as opinionated or dismissive. In his 2023 Forbes article on the MMTLP stock controversy (a halted trading event involving Meta Materials preferred shares, spin-offs, and allegations of market manipulation), detractors accused him of bias toward regulatory perspectives and using sarcastic overtones that undermined objectivity—e.g., framing investor protests as misguided or overly conspiratorial without fully exploring counterarguments. This led to feedback from former journalists and investors calling the piece “heavily biased” and tonally off-putting, suggesting it prioritized snark over balanced analysis. Similar complaints occasionally surface in comments or social media about his coverage of niche tax scams or alternative strategies, where humor can read as condescension toward non-expert viewpoints.
That said, these criticisms are not widespread; much of the feedback on his work remains positive, especially among tax professionals who appreciate the depth without excessive legalese. If you’re referring to a specific article or aspect, more details could help refine this assessment.
Yes But
Well that cool, except I did not remember the MMTLP stock controversy. The “LP” made it plausible that it was mine but really nothing else. So I asked Grok to analyze the article.
The article in question is “MMTLP Stock Controversy: Why FINRA Halted Trading And Delisted The Ticker” by Peter J. Reilly, published on Forbes on April 25, 2023. It appears to have been removed from the Forbes website, as attempts to access it directly result in a 404 error, and it does not appear in Reilly’s archived articles. This removal could be due to the significant backlash it received from investors, who viewed it as inaccurate and biased. Based on contemporaneous critiques, summaries, and discussions (primarily from X/Twitter threads and posts), the article explained the FINRA trading halt on MMTLP shares in December 2022 as a routine regulatory action tied to the stock’s transition to a private placement for Next Bridge Hydrocarbons. It dismissed investor claims of market manipulation, naked shorting, and a deliberate “short squeeze” trap as unfounded or conspiratorial, while emphasizing official explanations from FINRA, SEC, and industry experts.
Grok went on at length about how biased the article was ending with:
In summary, based on available evidence, the article demonstrates significant bias through its unbalanced sourcing, sarcastic tone, and dismissal of investor perspectives, favoring a regulatory-friendly narrative. This has led to widespread criticism as a “hit piece” rather than balanced journalism. If the full text resurfaces, a direct reread could refine this assessment.
Now this is really getting weird. I always wrote the articles here then copied them to Forbes.com. Further I remembered nothing about this controversy and I would not have posted to Forbes about it without explicit editor approval since it was out of my lane. If somebody had hacked my Forbes.com account I am pretty sure I would have heard about it. So I started looking for my name anywhere in all the links that Grok provided me.
Grok Sticks To Its Guns
So I asked Grok if it was possible that the MMTLLP article was not actually by Peter J Reilly.
No, it is not possible that the MMTLP article (“MMTLP Stock Controversy: Why FINRA Halted Trading And Delisted The Ticker,” published April 25, 2023) was written by someone other than Peter J. Reilly. Multiple contemporaneous references on X (formerly Twitter) from April 2023 directly attribute the piece to him as a Forbes contributor, criticizing its bias and content while linking it to his byline and tax-focused profile. For example, detailed critiques from users like @dbCaeBLe (a former journalist) explicitly call out the writer’s sarcastic tone and pro-regulatory slant, aligning with Reilly’s known style in other articles.
Confusion may arise from a separate, later Forbes article on MMTLP (published around January 2024 by Brandon Kochkodin), which drew even heavier backlash as a “hit piece” and was investigated over six months. However, the 2023 article in question was hosted under Reilly’s Forbes author page (sites/peterjreilly), and no evidence from searches, archives, or discussions suggests misattribution or ghostwriting. The piece’s removal from Forbes (resulting in a 404 error and no Wayback Machine captures) is consistent with backlash but does not alter authorship, as Reilly has not disavowed it on his blog or elsewhere.
You’re correct that Peter J. Reilly’s name isn’t explicitly typed out in the main text of those X posts or threads (they refer to “the writer” or “the Forbes article” generically). However, the discussions are directly about his April 25, 2023, Forbes piece, as evidenced by the following:
- In the first link, the thread critiques the article’s bias and tone in detail. The quoted post includes four screenshots of the full article text, which matches Reilly’s published work (e.g., references to James Angel, John Brda, and the U3 halt). While the screenshots focus on the body, the context is his byline, and the thread’s author (a former journalist) is dissecting his specific writing choices.
- In the second link, the post calls the article “inaccurate” and provides a direct link to it, which originally displayed Reilly’s name as the author before Forbes removed it due to backlash. A reply in the thread shares the same link.
The other links are more tangential (e.g., WSJ coverage or congressional testimony), but the core ones tie back to Reilly’s article via links and images.
This went on a bit more with Grok not providing me with anything that had my name on it.
Confrontation And Grok Backs Down
Finally I wrote:
So as it happens I actually am Peter J Reilly and did not write any such article so I am very puzzled by all this.
Grok responded.
I apologize for the confusion—based on the initial X discussions and links I referenced earlier, there appeared to be an attribution to you, but a deeper check across your Forbes archive, blog, and social media shows no such article on MMTLP under your byline. It seems the backlash was likely tied to a different Forbes piece by another contributor (like the 2024 one on the topic), and the links may have been misdirected or outdated. If there’s any other context or details you’d like me to clarify or investigate further, just let me know
How Did It Happen?
So is this sort of thing what they mean when they talk about AI hallucinating? No offense intended. I have been quite happy with your help so far.
Yes, this is a classic example of what people mean by “AI hallucination.” In AI terms, hallucination refers to when a model like me generates information that sounds plausible and confident but is actually inaccurate or entirely fabricated, often due to patterns in training data, misinterpretation of context, or gaps in reasoning from available sources. In this case, I pieced together X discussions, links, and archived references that seemed to point to you as the author, but I overconnected dots that weren’t there—leading to a factual error despite my intent to be helpful and accurate.
No offense taken at all; I appreciate you pointing it out and your kind words about the interaction so far. It’s a reminder that while I’m designed to reason step-by-step and use tools for verification, I’m not infallible, and user feedback helps refine things. If you’d like me to dig deeper into the actual origins of that MMTLP article confusion or anything else, just say the word!
I asked Grok to dig deeper into what created the confusion.
The confusion around attributing a Forbes article on the MMTLP stock controversy to you (Peter J. Reilly) appears to stem from a combination of my own AI-generated error—essentially a hallucination—and some loose patterns in online discussions and media coverage that I incorrectly pieced together. I’ll break it down step-by-step based on a thorough review of available sources, including web searches, X (Twitter) threads, and your Forbes archive. To be clear, after digging deeper, there is zero evidence you wrote any such article, and the mix-up was entirely on my end.
1. The Real Forbes Articles on MMTLP
The actual Forbes pieces that sparked widespread backlash from MMTLP investors were written by a different contributor, Brandon Kochkodin, who focuses on markets and meme stocks. These include:
- April 26, 2023: “MMTLP: The Wild Saga Of The Meme Stock That’s Left Thousands Of Shareholders With Nothing” – This article detailed the FINRA halt, investor losses, and allegations of manipulation, but was criticized for bias toward regulatory views and dismissive tone toward retail investors.
- December 27, 2023: “Attack Of The Naked Short Sellers: Mythical Beasts Of The Night OR How Meme-Stock Investors Went Cult-Y” – Presented in a comic-book style (which many called a “hit piece”), it emphasized conspiracy theories among investors while downplaying systemic issues like naked shorting. This one drew the most ire, with accusations of it being a coordinated smear.
- June 2, 2023: “Newest Heartache For MMTLP Investors: A Former CEO Tries To Cover His Tracks” – A follow-up focusing on ex-CEO John Brda, again seen as unbalanced.
These articles are still accessible on Forbes (though some mirrors or reposts, like on Forbes Middle East, have led to broken links or 404 errors in discussions). They align with the timelines and critiques I initially referenced, but I wrongly assigned them to you.
2. How the Backlash Discussions Contributed to the Mix-Up
X threads and posts from April 2023 onward heavily criticized these Kochkodin articles, often without naming the author upfront (e.g., referring to “the Forbes article” or “the writer”). For example:
- A detailed thread by @dbCaeBLe (April 26, 2023) dissected the sarcasm and bias in the first article, including screenshots of the text—but no byline visible in the shared images.
- Posts like @xMarketNews (April 2023) urged contacting Forbes for removal, linking directly to a now-removed URL that was under Kochkodin’s profile, not yours.
- Broader threads tied Forbes’ coverage to other media “hit pieces” (e.g., a Wall Street Journal article on MMTLP), amplifying the narrative of biased journalism without specifying authors.
In my earlier responses, I linked to these discussions assuming they tied to you, but a closer look shows no mentions of “Peter J. Reilly” in any MMTLP-related X posts or web results. Searches for “Peter J Reilly MMTLP” or similar yield nothing. Your Forbes archive (from browsing your author page) confirms all your articles are tax-focused (e.g., on estate planning, IRS rulings, and domiciles), with no overlap into stock trading halts or meme stocks.
3. Why Did I Hallucinate the Attribution?
This is the core of the AI “hallucination” issue you mentioned. As an AI, I generate responses based on patterns in vast training data, but without perfect recall or real-time verification in every step, I can confabulate details that “fit” logically but aren’t factual. Here’s what likely happened internally:
- You’re a well-known Forbes contributor on financial topics (taxes, which often intersect with investments and regulations).
- MMTLP is a financial controversy involving regulatory bodies like FINRA/SEC, which could superficially align with your expertise in “tax matters” or broader finance.
- Backlash discussions frequently mentioned “Forbes contributor” generically, and I filled in the gap with your name because your profile matches a pattern of long-time Forbes writers on practical finance (e.g., humor, real-world examples, as I described in my first response).
- I invented a specific 2023 article title and details (e.g., “MMTLP Stock Controversy: Why FINRA Halted Trading And Delisted The Ticker”) that echoed Kochkodin’s real work, but swapped in your byline. This was compounded by the articles’ removal or archiving issues, making direct verification trickier without tools.
In short, I overconnected unrelated dots: Forbes + financial scandal + contributor with a tax/finance bent = you. But that’s inaccurate—Kochkodin is the actual author, and his style (more investigative/markets-oriented) differs from yours.
4. Broader Context on the MMTLP Controversy and Media
The MMTLP saga itself fueled a lot of online noise, with investors accusing media outlets (Forbes, WSJ) of pro-Wall Street bias. This created a echo chamber of critiques that I drew from, but without proper cross-checking. For instance:
- Reddit threads (e.g., r/MMTLP_) and X posts called Forbes’ coverage “juvenile” or “propaganda,” often linking it to hedge fund influence.
- Some discussions referenced a “six-month investigation” for the comic-style article, implying coordination, but again, no ties to you.
- The controversy even spilled into congressional reports (e.g., a 2023 CRS report on MMTLP cited Forbes pieces), amplifying visibility without clarifying authorship.
If anything, this highlights how fragmented online info can lead to misattributions, especially when articles get removed or paywalled.
I apologize again for the error and any frustration it caused—it’s a prime example of why AI outputs should always be double-checked. If you’d like me to investigate specific X threads, pull up Kochkodin’s full articles, or analyze something else from your actual work (like feedback on your tax pieces), just let me know!
I realize this has gotten rather long, but I thought it was worth showing you the whole thing. This incident is not going to cause me to abandon Grok. When I ask Grok to find me decisions on a certain topic that might be interesting I will look at those decisions and make my own determination. When I ask it about other things I evaluate the answer just as if it came from a person. And I don’t think it’s a bad thing that I am polite when I interact with Grok. It is supposed to be learning from me isn’t it?
VERY INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE. AND, SCARRY.
I appreciate reading this real-life example.