New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI 49%

By Anthony Ha57%

7/4/2026, 1:55:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 69.8% saturation with 256 hits. Analysis detected 1,324 faulty-reasoning hits from 367 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.4% and a BS Rank of 49% (11,352 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.90% of the article peer group.

Two hundred and fifty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a new commercial from Google asks: What if the Founding Fathers had access to Google Workspace? 
With the tagline “Group project, but make it 1776,” the ad depicts a largely unseen Thomas Jefferson mid-draft when he gets a nagging text from Ben Franklin, leading to a very Google-centric collaboration process. 
Edits are suggested in Google Docs, a meeting gets scheduled in Google Calendar and conducted remotely via Google Meet (with every single attendee apparently turning their camera off?), then the whole thing is finalized with e-signatures; cue the fireworks. 
Of course, since this is an ad from a tech company in the year 2026, AI has a role to play. 
The fictionalized founders use Google’s “help me visualize” AI tool to try out different animals on the national seal, Gemini takes notes on the meeting, and the founders also ask the chatbot for advice before declining King George III’s document access request. 
The whole thing is very tongue-in-cheek (at one point, Sam Adams asks, “Can we settle this over beers?”), and the AI evangelism is relatively discreet when compared to many other recent ads. 
And unlike that infamous Google commercial in which a father uses Gemini to write a fan letter for his daughter, this one shies away from any suggestion that the actual text of the Declaration of Independence would be improved with AI. 
Perhaps the most AI-forward element of the ad is the footage itself, which to my eye has the uncanny glow of AI-generated video. 
While viewer comments on YouTube and Instagram appear to be mostly positive, you may not be surprised to learn that the response on Bluesky has been far more critical. 
Posters declared the commercial “cringey” and “stunningly tone deaf,” and the AI angle was the biggest target  even as many users, including historian Angus Johnston, noted that it’s “amazing how little of this is actually AI.” 
“Even in a corny fantasy joke, it’s impossible to make the case that AI is a useful tool for political organizing, writing, or human collaboration,” Johnston said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%Anthony Ha: 4.3%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 9.3%Anthony Ha: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.3%This article: 29.7%Anthony Ha: 4.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic29.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.1%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Anthony Ha: 2.4%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias7.4%This article: 9.3%Anthony Ha: 4.6%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect9.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 3.1%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.5%Anthony Ha: 2.0%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias18.5%This article: 36.0%Anthony Ha: 7.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias36.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 2.4%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.4%Anthony Ha: 2.2%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 4.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 3.3%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.9%Anthony Ha: 3.3%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma7.9%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.5%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.3%Anthony Ha: 12.4%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization15.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Anthony Ha: 0.3%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 10.1%Anthony Ha: 3.4%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion10.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 3.6%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.3%Anthony Ha: 5.0%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal16.3%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.4%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.4%Anthony Ha: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote17.4%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 69.8%Anthony Ha: 5.7%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice69.8%This article: 5.7%Anthony Ha: 1.6%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Ha: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 51.5%Anthony Ha: 1.7%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…51.5%

367 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.4%attributed speech340writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageAngus Johnston • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Angus Johnston

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+89.1 ptsWriter: 10.9%Angus Johnston: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-75.3 ptsWriter: 75.3%Angus Johnston: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -55.6 ptsWriter: 55.6%Angus Johnston: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Angus Johnston: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.