Google released a commercial this week that shows Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams writing the Declaration of Independence with help from Google Docs, Google Meet, and Gemini — Google's artificial intelligence tool. The ad aired on July 4 and has been criticized by journalists and historians.

In the ad, which you can watch on YouTube, Franklin joins a video call, Jefferson edits a document, and Gemini (the AI) helps with the writing. Google is essentially saying: "This is what teamwork looks like with our software."

TechCrunch covered the ad on July 4, treating it as an amusing idea. By the next day, The Verge called it "ill-advised" and "just plain dumb." Angus Johnston, a history professor at CUNY, posted on social media: "Even as a joke, it's impossible to make the case that AI is useful for political organizing, writing, or human collaboration."

Johnston's point is worth understanding. The Declaration of Independence was not something that an AI could have helped draft by offering suggestions. It was written by people who deeply disagreed with each other. They debated, revised, and argued until they reached agreement — all while facing real danger. Putting an AI in that story does not match what actually happened.

Google's ad tries to say that AI is a genuine partner in making big human decisions. That is a much bigger claim than simply saying "our software helps teams work better." And when you make a big claim like that, you invite people to think carefully about whether it is true.

Right now, Google, Microsoft, and other AI companies are all trying to convince people that AI is not just good for routine tasks — it is a real thinking partner. Ads like this one are supposed to help shift how people think about AI. But this particular commercial backfired. A major tech publication called it "just plain dumb," which is not the message Google wanted to send. This matters because many people are still unsure whether AI is actually useful for the important things they do.

Will this ad actually hurt Google's business. Probably not. Companies choose their software based on whether it works for them, not whether a funny ad made them feel good. But the negative reaction sends a signal about how Google wants to position its AI product — and in this case, the signal was not the one they intended.

The real takeaway is this: as AI companies try to convince people that AI should be part of major human decisions, the stories they tell matter. This one did not work.