BTS

Only party you've ever been invited to.

He's a pig

To lose 70% of your hearing in an ear in 3 years is so scary Touring as well is probably doing no favours either ..

Usher and Jungkook have collabed Usher even invited JK to perform at the Super Bowl as a special guest but he was drafted to the military at the time. They're clearly there in support of Usher / because they were invited by Usher. But let's only focus on Chris Brown.

It was worth the WPs and 75 dislikes

Ngl I sometimes get sucked into those AI dramas from TikTok ads Opal the siren had me watching that **** for 30 minutes 10/10

Use Gemini the superior AI

I think people are taking this way further than what is actually being advertised, and there's a lot of projection going on in this thread. You can dislike AI. You can have serious concerns about generative AI. You can be uncomfortable with the way AI companies have trained models, the effect AI may have on artists and creative industries, the environmental cost, copyright issues, deepfakes, etc. All of those are perfectly legitimate conversations to have. But somehow "I have ethical concerns about AI" has turned into "BTS are hypocrites/bad people for appearing in a commercial for Gemini," and I don't think the latter automatically follows from the former. First of all, this is an advertisement for Gemini as a consumer product. It isn't BTS announcing that they're replacing their songwriters, producers, photographers, graphic designers or creative teams with AI. There is an enormous difference between those two things. The campaign is essentially presenting Gemini as a tool that people can use to ask questions, brainstorm, search for information, plan things, etc. Google itself has been positioning Gemini as an everyday assistant and has been integrating it into Search and other products. (blog.google⁠) If the commercial had BTS saying "we use AI to write our songs now," "AI is better than human artists," or "artists don't need to be paid because AI can make their work," then yes, I would completely understand why people would consider that fundamentally incompatible with their previous attitudes toward creativity. But that's not what happened. And I think this is where some people are making a massive leap. The Namjoon argument doesn't really work either I've seen people bringing up Namjoon's previous comments about AI and creativity as though that proves BTS have contradicted themselves. But being concerned about AI's impact on art does not mean you have to believe every single application of AI is inherently evil. Those are two completely different positions. Someone can say: "I don't want AI generating music/art/creative work in place of human artists." while simultaneously saying: "I don't think every AI-powered productivity or search tool is inherently immoral." Those positions are entirely compatible. And honestly, this is where the discourse around AI has become ridiculously binary. AI isn't one single thing. Using an AI assistant to help you organise information is not the same thing as generating an entire painting and presenting it as your own artwork. Using AI to translate something isn't the same thing as replacing a songwriter. Using AI to help brainstorm isn't necessarily the same thing as asking it to produce the finished creative work. Using an AI image generator to make a fake photograph of a real person without their consent is obviously a different ethical question again. These distinctions matter. And the "BTS are artists, therefore they shouldn't promote AI" argument is incredibly reductive BTS being artists doesn't mean they are required to reject every technological development that could potentially affect artists. Technology has always changed the creative industry. Photography changed painting. Sampling changed music. Digital audio changed recording. Auto-Tune changed vocal production. Streaming completely transformed how music is distributed. Photoshop changed photography and graphic design. Social media changed promotion. And now AI is changing a whole bunch of industries, including creative industries. You can absolutely argue that some of these developments have had negative consequences. But the existence of negative consequences doesn't mean artists have to pretend the technology doesn't exist. And BTS aren't some underground indie band whose entire career is built around rejecting technology. They're literally one of the biggest commercial music acts in the world. Their career exists within an enormous ecosystem of technology, advertising, streaming platforms, social media, digital production, visual effects, etc. So the idea that appearing in an AI commercial is somehow uniquely shocking because they're musicians doesn't really make sense to me. Also, let's be honest about what people are actually angry about A lot of this isn't really about this particular commercial. It's about AI as a whole. And that's fine. If you hate generative AI, you probably aren't going to suddenly become enthusiastic about Gemini because BTS are advertising it. But that doesn't mean BTS have committed some enormous moral betrayal by taking the campaign. Google and Gemini are not some obscure AI startup that suddenly appeared yesterday. Google has been aggressively incorporating Gemini into its ecosystem for years, and in 2026 AI is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream consumer products. Google is openly building Gemini into Search, apps and other everyday services. (blog.google⁠) In fact, Google has already been associating Gemini with BTS-related events. During the BTS The City Arirang festival in Busan, Google was the official AI companion, with Gemini-powered experiences designed to help visitors explore the city and plan activities. (koreajoongangdaily⁠) So this isn't necessarily some bizarre "BTS suddenly decided they love AI" situation. This is a massive global corporation making a marketing partnership with one of the biggest entertainment acts on the planet. That's literally how celebrity advertising works. "But they should have known the ethical implications!" Okay, but what exactly are you expecting? BTS are not Google executives. They're not the people designing Gemini's training datasets. They're not responsible for Google's corporate AI strategy. They're not the engineers deciding how models are trained. They're not Google's legal department. They're not responsible for every single thing somebody can do with Gemini. They're celebrities participating in an advertising campaign. You can absolutely say that celebrities should be selective about the companies they endorse. That's fair. But there's a difference between: "I personally wish BTS hadn't accepted this sponsorship because I think Google's AI practices are unethical." and "BTS advertising Gemini proves BTS don't care about artists anymore." The first is an opinion. The second is an assumption about their personal beliefs that we simply don't have evidence for. And ironically, Gemini itself has uses that have nothing to do with replacing artists This is another thing being completely ignored. People are acting as if Gemini = AI-generated artwork. It doesn't. AI assistants can be used for research, accessibility, translation, summarisation, coding, education, planning, brainstorming, information retrieval, etc. There are legitimate arguments that AI can be useful in those areas. There are also legitimate arguments about the risks involved. Both can be true. There are already examples of researchers using Gemini-based systems as research assistants for things like checking proofs, exploring problems and assisting with technical work. (arXiv⁠) That doesn't mean AI is inherently good. It means the technology itself isn't morally one-dimensional. "But AI steals from artists" This is probably the strongest criticism in the thread, and unlike some of the other arguments, I actually understand why people are concerned. The training of generative AI models raises serious questions about copyright, consent, compensation and the use of creative work in datasets. Those are real issues. But again: that criticism should be directed at the companies and systems responsible for those practices rather than retroactively assuming that every celebrity who appears in an AI advertisement personally endorses every aspect of the technology. If Google is doing something unethical, criticize Google. If Gemini's training practices are unethical, criticize Gemini. If AI-generated art harms working artists, discuss that. If copyright law needs to change, campaign for it. But "BTS appeared in a Gemini campaign" isn't evidence that RM secretly believes artists deserve no compensation or that Jungkook wants AI to replace musicians. That's just fandom discourse turning a commercial appearance into a referendum on someone's entire worldview. The hypocrisy accusations are especially premature I've seen comments along the lines of: "Namjoon said X about AI, so this is hypocritical." Maybe it is. But we don't actually know that. The commercial doesn't establish that BTS have changed their views on AI-generated art. It establishes that they agreed to advertise Gemini. Those aren't interchangeable statements. If tomorrow BTS released an AI-generated album and explicitly said "we no longer need human songwriters because AI is better," then by all means drag them for contradicting previous statements. But appearing in an advertisement for an AI assistant isn't remotely equivalent to that. We need to stop filling in the blanks ourselves. And I really don't understand the expectation that celebrities must personally agree with every ethical position of every consumer who buys their products This happens constantly with celebrity endorsements. People buy phones made by companies with questionable labour practices. People wear clothes from companies criticised for environmental or labour issues. People use social media platforms with enormous privacy problems. People eat food from corporations with questionable business practices. People stream music through companies whose royalty structures artists have criticised. People use Google products while simultaneously criticising Google's business practices. And yet suddenly BTS signing an advertising deal means they personally need to become the world's foremost ethical authority on AI. Come on. If we applied this standard consistently, we'd have to interrogate basically every celebrity endorsement ever made. There is also a very weird parasocial element to some of this Some of these comments are talking about BTS as though they personally sat down together and decided: "Let's betray artists and promote AI." We have no idea what their individual opinions on this specific campaign are. We don't know which members were enthusiastic. We don't know who was indifferent. We don't know what contractual obligations existed. We don't know how much creative control they had over the campaign. We don't know what conversations happened internally. We don't know whether every member personally uses Gemini. We don't know whether any member personally agrees with every claim made in the campaign. And we don't need to invent those details. They're employees/artists working within a massive entertainment business, and commercial partnerships are negotiated by companies, agencies and brands all the time. That doesn't make them robots with no agency, but it also doesn't make every advertisement a personal manifesto from each member. And if your actual objection is "I don't want BTS associated with AI," that's completely fair Honestly, I can understand someone saying: "I don't like this partnership. I wish they hadn't done it." Fine. You don't have to like every brand they work with. You don't have to buy Gemini. You don't have to share the advertisement. You don't have to defend Google. You can even decide that this changes how you view BTS. That's your prerogative. What I don't understand is the insistence that everyone else must therefore interpret the campaign as proof that BTS have abandoned their values. Because that's a much bigger claim than the evidence supports. There's also an important distinction between criticism and catastrophising Criticism: "I think BTS shouldn't have promoted Gemini because I believe generative AI has serious ethical problems." Reasonable. Criticism: "I'm disappointed because Namjoon has previously spoken about the importance of human creativity." Also reasonable. Criticism: "I hope they clarify whether they support AI-generated art replacing human artists." Completely reasonable. But: "BTS are now pro-AI and don't care about artists." That's an extrapolation. And: "This proves everything they've ever said about creativity was fake." That's an even bigger extrapolation. You can't establish someone's entire worldview from one sponsorship. And let's not pretend the AI debate is settled There is a tendency online to talk about AI ethics as though there is one universally accepted position and anybody who doesn't agree with it is immoral. There isn't. People are still figuring this out. Governments are still figuring this out. Artists are still figuring this out. Companies are still figuring this out. Courts are still dealing with copyright questions. Consumers are still figuring out where their own boundaries are. And AI is evolving incredibly quickly. Google itself describes its current AI products as an ongoing development and has continued introducing new Gemini capabilities throughout 2026. (blog.google⁠) So I don't think it's unreasonable for people's opinions to evolve either. Maybe BTS' opinions have evolved. Maybe they haven't. Maybe their personal opinions are more nuanced than "AI good" or "AI bad." Maybe they view certain applications of AI positively and others negatively. That's actually the position I suspect most normal people have. Finally, BTS are allowed to be imperfect This is the part of fandom culture that drives me insane. People constantly demand that BTS represent a perfectly consistent moral philosophy at all times. They're human beings. They can make questionable commercial decisions. They can have opinions we don't agree with. They can change their minds. They can participate in a campaign that you don't like. And you can criticize them for it. But you don't have to turn every disappointing decision into evidence that their entire identity is fraudulent. You can say: "I don't like this partnership." without saying: "BTS have betrayed everything they stand for." Those are two completely different levels of criticism. Personally, I think the most intellectually honest position here is: Yes, there are legitimate ethical concerns surrounding generative AI. Yes, it is reasonable to be disappointed that BTS chose to participate in a Gemini campaign. But no, the campaign itself does not demonstrate that BTS endorse AI replacing artists, support exploitative AI training practices, or have abandoned their views about human creativity. And that's really the point. Criticise the sponsorship if you don't like it. Criticise Google. Criticise Gemini. Have the AI ethics conversation. But let's not manufacture beliefs for seven people based on a ******* advertisement. They're selling a product. It's not a declaration of their personal philosophy.

The sugar babes and pussycat dolls were replacing members every other week. What's stopping them

And this is the band ATRL says was more deserving than BTS

It is ******. What similarities would Bollywood and Kpop have except being in the same continent Segregating an entire continent because of their race. It's ******* weird… It's like how they always pigeonhole black artists into R&B when they clearly make pop music. There's no European category.. but there is an African, a Latino and now a best Asian pop

Emmys/Tonys are the least prestigious as they're local awards and only count American shows. They have their own counterparts such as BAFTAs/Olivier etc. As an international viewer I have never watched the emmys but I have watched the Oscar's/ Grammys/ Golden Globes Oscars/Grammys are international hence more prestige. There's no real counterpart. Oscars > Grammy > Tony > Emmy

Work B*tch was in fact a Top5 on the Hot 100

They look fine?