New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI | TechCrunch
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.
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.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
Source link
#Google #commercial #imagines #Declaration #Independence #written #TechCrunch
Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.
The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.
Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.
“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.
Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.
It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.
Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.
All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.
“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”
Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”
A proposed pledge for Elon Musk. An opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If money won’t matter in 2036, why don’t you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036. This would establish with great credibility your…
Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.
Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.
The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.
Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.
Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.
The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.
Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.
The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.
Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.
“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.
Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.
It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.
Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.
All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.
“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”
Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”
A proposed pledge for Elon Musk. An opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If money won’t matter in 2036, why don’t you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036. This would establish with great credibility your…
Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.
Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.
The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.
Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.
Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.
The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.
#Charity #People #Elon #Muskcharity,Elon Musk">How Much Charity Would It Take for People to Like Elon Musk?
Most people don’t like billionaire Elon Musk. According to the latest polling, 53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the billionaire, while just 39% hold a favorable view. The Economist pointed out this fact in an absolutely wild sit-down interview last week that went viral. Musk appeared defensive and desperate to prove people actually love him, pointing to his large follower count on X, the social media site he controls.
The hate for Musk probably has something to do with his destruction of USAID, his steady stream of racist tweets, and his refusal to accept responsibility for the people who died as a result of his actions in government. And who can forget those two Nazi-style salutes he gave in public? The hate is also likely related to his attitude about charity. Musk has argued that his private businesses are a form of charitable giving and that billionaires like himself shouldn’t bother giving money away.
Why does Musk not believe in charity? Recently, he’s started to insist that it’s because people won’t actually need money in the future.
“Money won’t matter in 2036,” Musk insisted in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the Economist, Zanny Minton Beddoes.
Beddoes laughed off Musk’s assertion, pointing out that SpaceX investors probably believe that money will still matter in ten years. But Musk claims that AI will exceed human intelligence in five years and humans will no longer be in charge of the world by 2036. And at that point, he claims a techno-utopian society will emerge where no one will need money because robots will do all the labor and produce a world of abundance.
It’s absurd, of course. Labor-saving technologies are great, but they don’t change how a political or economic system is set up. If you want to pay people to stay at home, you could do that today in some fashion through government actions. There would be massive trade-offs, especially if the promise was a leisure society of little or no work. But it’s a political problem, not a technological one. And Musk proved through his actions with DOGE that he loathes people who he believes don’t work for the money they’re given. He was constantly complaining about people who he believed were getting government money without contributing through labor. The only thing that’s changed is that he’s selling you on the idea that his robots will do everything.
Musk has been crashing out for days over criticism about what he said in that interview last week. He promoted blog posts from his fanboys, he referred to chef José Andrés as an asshole; he said liberal commentator Joy Reid is a man and suggested she must be getting talking points from some unseen entity; and he called the Economist editor a “traitor to the west” and implied with an image that she should be shot.
All of which brings us to his tweet on Monday where he was asked to put his money where his mouth is. Daron Acemoğlu, a professor at MIT and 2024 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, suggested that Musk pledge to donate about all of his current wealth, about $1 trillion, to charity no later than 2036.
“This would establish with great credibility your belief in the powers of AI and technology,” wrote Acemoğlu. “It would also assuage many people around the world who are worried about the political and social influence of billionaires and trillionaires.”
Acemoğlu added that the charities should be “approved as effective and non-ideological by an impartial body.”
A proposed pledge for Elon Musk. An opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If money won’t matter in 2036, why don’t you pledge to donate your current wealth of approximately $1 trillion to charity no later than 2036. This would establish with great credibility your…
Musk responded to the tweet by claiming, “I am actually going to do something along these lines!” It’s unclear what that means exactly. But if Musk actually plans to give away all his wealth, that would indeed be noteworthy. Consider us skeptical.
Musk has given money to his own foundation over the years, but the Musk Foundation is little more than a joke. Filings show the Musk Foundation gave out $474 million in 2024 but the vast majority of that went to a nonprofit that operates a school for his employees in Texas, according to the New York Times. If your charitable giving is just something that benefits your business, it’s not really charity.
The most interesting question might be how much money Musk could donate in order to see his approval ratings improve. Would society look at him differently if he actually donated substantial sums to charity? It’s entirely possible that his reputation is so incurably radioactive that his polling numbers wouldn’t budge. But you have to believe that giving away every penny he holds would do something for his likability.
Unfortunately, it seems like we’ll never get to see this experiment play out in real life. Musk could give away hundreds of billions of dollars and he would still have more money than entire countries. And we’ve already seen what he spends his money on.
Musk is currently worth about $715 billion, according to Forbes, well off the $1.4 trillion peak he saw shortly after the SpaceX IPO. And if he’s serious about giving away billions of dollars, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But it all depends on where the money goes. He spent almost $300 million to help elected Republicans and Donald Trump in 2024. And if we had to bet, this guy isn’t going to give away money to orphans, widows, and starving people.
The head of the UN world food program asked Musk to donate $6.6 billion to feed hungry people in 2021. Musk declined and instead gave money to his own foundation. Whatever he’s cooking up, it’s not going to benefit the poor and the vulnerable.
Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.
The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.
Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.
Photograph: Reuters
At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”
It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”
A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.
Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.
The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.
Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.
Photograph: Reuters
At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”
It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”
A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.
#Wild #Rescue #Mission #Beluga #Whales #Chicagoanimal behavior,biology,animals,zoos,marine science,science,whales,chicago,canada">Inside the Wild Rescue Mission That Took 4 Beluga Whales to Chicago
One of the most crucial parts of pulling off an unprecedented international plane ride for four beluga whales is making sure they don’t even realize that they’re on a trip. “The goal is that they notice as little as possible,” says Karisa Tang, the lead veterinarian and vice president of animal health at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium.
Tang and Charlie Jacobsma, the Shedd’s director of animal behavior and training, accompanied beluga whales Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra on the journey from their Niagara Falls enclosures to Toronto’s Pearson Airport and to Chicago. Two additional belugas joined the flight on a chartered Boeing 777 freighter but were then transported to an aquarium in San Antonio.
The whales had been living in Marineland of Niagara Falls, a notorious, long-running aquarium and amusement park that went bankrupt after the death of its owners and closed to the public in 2024. As it ran out of money to care for the animals, the park had previously implored the Canadian government for assistance. In 2025, Marineland announced that it had made the “devastating decision” to consider euthanasia if it could not relocate the animals.
Workers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium use a sling to move a beluga whale.
Photograph: Reuters
At that point, the wider aquarium and marine biology world was already discussing what could be done; by January 2026, members of the rescue team were flying to Ontario to assess how they’d transport the belugas. In June, Canada reached an agreement with Marineland to allow this rehoming process, in which animals may go to a consortium of aquariums in Georgia, San Diego, and Spain, in addition to the whales already transferred to Chicago and Texas institutions. It was an unprecedented mission. “People have moved belugas before,” Tang says. “But something of this scale had not been done.”
It all went about as smoothly as moving thousand-plus-pound water-dwelling mammals hundreds of miles could have gone: “Beautiful, nice, slow takeoff and a nice easy landing,” Jacobsma tells WIRED. The team was able to stay close to the whales, constantly monitoring them and “pouring water on their backs, making sure that they were comfortable.”
A few days after the transport, on a sunny Friday afternoon, visitors to the Shedd’s Oceanarium section are greeted with signs asking for quiet. “Please keep voices low,” they read. “Help the rescued belugas acclimate to their new home.” WIRED peeked into a secluded habitat, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by veterinarians and other marine life experts, where Acadia, Lillooet, Osiris, and Sierra are currently being kept out of sight of the public so their new stewards can focus on settling them into their new home.
Pushing a heavy lawn mower through thick grass in the peak of summer heat is nobody’s idea of a good weekend. If you’ve been waiting for a reason to hand off your yard chores to a robot, now’s the time to pull out your wallet.
Amazon’s running a limited-time deal (you have about 14 hours left) on the Ecovacs Goat A3000 LiDAR Pro robotic lawn mower. Right now, you can get it for $1,849 at Amazon, down from $2,499.99. That’s a 26% discount or $650.99 in savings.
Mashable Trend Report
Unlike older robotic mowers that require you to bury perimeter wires around your property, the Goat A3000 uses wire-free HoloScope 360 Dual-LiDAR navigation and an AI camera. It automatically maps yards up to 3/4 acre and maintains positioning accuracy within less than an inch, even under dense tree cover or along shaded fences.
It also features a built-in TruEdge trimmer to clean up borders along driveways and garden beds, a 32V power system designed for thick grass types like Bermuda or St. Augustine, and a 7,500 mAh battery that recharges in 70 minutes.
Pushing a heavy lawn mower through thick grass in the peak of summer heat is nobody’s idea of a good weekend. If you’ve been waiting for a reason to hand off your yard chores to a robot, now’s the time to pull out your wallet.
Amazon’s running a limited-time deal (you have about 14 hours left) on the Ecovacs Goat A3000 LiDAR Pro robotic lawn mower. Right now, you can get it for $1,849 at Amazon, down from $2,499.99. That’s a 26% discount or $650.99 in savings.
Mashable Trend Report
Unlike older robotic mowers that require you to bury perimeter wires around your property, the Goat A3000 uses wire-free HoloScope 360 Dual-LiDAR navigation and an AI camera. It automatically maps yards up to 3/4 acre and maintains positioning accuracy within less than an inch, even under dense tree cover or along shaded fences.
It also features a built-in TruEdge trimmer to clean up borders along driveways and garden beds, a 32V power system designed for thick grass types like Bermuda or St. Augustine, and a 7,500 mAh battery that recharges in 70 minutes.
SAVE 26%: As of July 27, you can get the Ecovacs Goat A3000 LiDAR Pro robotic lawn mower for $1,849 at Amazon, down from $2,499.99. That’s a 26% discount or $650.99 in savings.
$1,849 at Amazon $2,499.99 Save $650.99
Pushing a heavy lawn mower through thick grass in the peak of summer heat is nobody’s idea of a good weekend. If you’ve been waiting for a reason to hand off your yard chores to a robot, now’s the time to pull out your wallet.
Amazon’s running a limited-time deal (you have about 14 hours left) on the Ecovacs Goat A3000 LiDAR Pro robotic lawn mower. Right now, you can get it for $1,849 at Amazon, down from $2,499.99. That’s a 26% discount or $650.99 in savings.
Mashable Trend Report
Unlike older robotic mowers that require you to bury perimeter wires around your property, the Goat A3000 uses wire-free HoloScope 360 Dual-LiDAR navigation and an AI camera. It automatically maps yards up to 3/4 acre and maintains positioning accuracy within less than an inch, even under dense tree cover or along shaded fences.
It also features a built-in TruEdge trimmer to clean up borders along driveways and garden beds, a 32V power system designed for thick grass types like Bermuda or St. Augustine, and a 7,500 mAh battery that recharges in 70 minutes.
![New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI | TechCrunch
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.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3RjZY-rSsc[/embed]
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Google #commercial #imagines #Declaration #Independence #written #TechCrunchgemini,Google](https://i2.wp.com/techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/google-declaration-of-independence.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1 "New Google commercial imagines a Declaration of Independence written with help from AI | TechCrunch
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.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3RjZY-rSsc[/embed]
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#Google #commercial #imagines #Declaration #Independence #written #TechCrunchgemini,Google")
Post Comment