Vanza Setia - Articles

Destroying Stupid Logic from the anti-AI, Woke People

Vanza Setia — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

There have been so many idiots in the West believing that artificial intelligence (AI) should not exist because it brings more harm than good. They raise issues such as copyright issues, whether AI-generated content is considered stealing or not, environmental issues, and many other issues. But such issues are issues for narrow-minded Western people. I am not here to address those issues. I argue that despite all the issues, Western people should pursue the development of artificial intelligence regardless of the harms and develop safety measures for AI to minimize the harms.

First, we can not make AI disappear. We can not revert to a world where AI or large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, do not exist. We can not. When someone develops a nuclear weapon, can we decide to make it disappear? Once it is publicly available, there is no turning back. When someone develops annoying pop-up ads, can we make them disappear? No, we can not. We must live with them even though they are annoying. The same goes for AI. No matter how many dummies use AI to share low-quality content or brainrot, we must continue living with it.

Should we say that a knife is evil because people can kill others with it? Should we erase the existence of all knives? Knives are useful. But they can be harmful if you use them to harm others. This means whether knives are useful or harmful depend on how people use them.

Imagine Chinese people saying that artificial intelligence's development must be stopped or slowed down. Imagine Russians going on the street and protesting about AI. We can only find those people in Europe and in America. For sure, not all Europeans and Americans oppose AI. But why do some Europeans or Americans hate AI?

In the past, we imagined tools that could help us write code. Now those tools exist. Artificial intelligence helps us write code. At least, for now, it can help us do something boring, such as setting up boilerplate, converting HTML to Markdown, writing and formatting Markdown table syntax, and other repetitive work.

More importantly, we should not only see the negative effects of artificial intelligence. There are great things too. Artificial intelligence helps a lot in the military. In the future, we will not have humans fight on the battlefield. Instead, we will have robots controlled by humans. Already, we have drones. Any country that refuses to use AI in the military will lose against those who use AI. If the Western countries do not develop AI, they will lose against China. They will lose against Russia.

I am not saying that we should go to war with AI. I am arguing that the safety of any country is determined by how advanced its technologies are. Western countries are safe because they have nuclear and other scary weapons. For example, if the USA does not have nukes and does not have AI, do you think China or Russia will not dare to attack America? Peace can happen because countries are powerful. Just like having a gun with you does not necessarily make you a dangerous person, having powerful AI weapons will make your enemy think twice (or more) before attacking you. Remember, there are many "hyenas" who will attack you when you are weak, whether you believe it or not.

Anyway, just like any other technology, they always come with pros and cons. They can also be useful if we use them wisely and can be dangerous if we use them to harm others.

Now, stupid people believe that AI will kill us all. This is harmful and stupid because it potentially causes AI development to slow down. If you think critically, who is going to lose if AI development slows down? The answer is any stupid leaders who believe such garbage.

Before, people wanted to have intelligent tools, and now that they exist, people argue that their existence is evil. Silly!

If we take the logic of the anti-AI, humans are dangerous because, in the end, we make those tools. Should we kill ourselves? Should we stop having children? Let's end the human era! Let the next group of monkeys turn into humans (evil theory of Darwin), and tell them that they should not do what we have done.

Don't be stupid.

Anyway, I agree that artificial intelligence should be regulated to prevent it from harming people. We do not want it to kill us, for sure. But do not stop or even slow down its development. If you, Europeans and Americans and everybody, want your country to stay safe and strong, AI must be developed quickly, and no regulations should be made by your government to slow or even to stop AI's development. In fact, your government must insist on speeding up its development with safety measures. Don't get left behind!

Do Not Let Stupid People Silence You When You Criticize Them

Vanza Setia — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Have you ever criticized someone? But then this person says to you, "If you can do it better than me, do it yourself."

That is a fair answer if we put that answer in a specific context. For instance, you ask someone for help to clean your bathroom. But this person does it differently than you do. You tell this person to do it your way. Then this person can reply to you with that statement: "If you can do it better, do it yourself." That person, in my opinion, is correct because when you ask someone for help, you should not force that person to do it your way. Every person has their own way to do things. As long as the results are the same—a clean bathroom—no need to debate.

But that sentence will not work if the one who gets criticized is a doctor or a professional or the government. Imagine yourself going to a doctor with your kid. Your kid needs surgery. You decide to trust the doctor, and sadly, the surgery fails. Your kid's condition is getting worse. You get angry and complain to the doctor, but the doctor replies, "Don't complain to me. Do you think you can do better than me?" Can you see the madness here?

You have the right to criticize or complain to professionals because those people are paid to solve your problems. You do not pay a doctor to make your kid die. You pay the doctor so that your kid will become healthy again. Additionally, if everybody needs to be a doctor to criticize a doctor, that does not make sense because you do not need to be a doctor to know that your kids are sick and you expect your kids to get better.

The same goes for the government. In a democratic country, if you criticize your president, this president should not say that the people who criticize the president must be able to replace the president and do a better job. If this president demands that, well, this president is an idiot, for sure.

People elect a president because they believe that this person can make the country better. When this person fails, the people have the right to criticize this president. They can even impeach the president if the law offers them a way to do that.

If the president does not like to be criticized, do not run for president in the first place. Do not join the election. Plus, nobody is forcing this person to run for president.

By understanding that you do not need to be better than the person you criticize, you should be confident and be brave. Do not let a stupid person make you feel powerless. The only requirement for you to criticize that person is that you believe what you say is right. As long as what you say is right, your criticism is valid.

How to Format a USB Using Command Prompt in Windows 10/11

Vanza Setia — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Open Command Prompt as an administrator.
Run diskpart.
Run list disk.
See the Size column and find your disk. It can be Disk 1 or Disk 2, for example.
Run select disk N, where N is the number of your disk.
Run clean.
Run create partition primary.
Run active.
Run select partition N. You may not need to run this since you only have one partition, unless you create more than one.
Run format override quick.
Run exit to quit diskpart.

For more information, visit the official documentation for diskpart.

How to Boot into Windows 10 after Removing Linux Mint

Vanza Setia — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Understanding the issue

The way you remove Linux Mint (or any other Linux distro) is by using Disk Management in Windows 10 to delete the volume used by Linux Mint.

You thought that you had completely uninstalled Linux Mint. You shut down your computer. Then you power on your computer again, and you get the following instead of booting to Windows 10:

grub>

Solving the issue

You need a USB flash drive with Linux Mint on it. No internet connection is required.

Get into your BIOS.
Boot from your USB flash drive.
Start Linux Mint.
In Linux Mint, press the Windows key and search for "Boot Repair."
Open Boot Repair.
If a pop-up appears asking about an update, choose No.
Choose Recommended repair.
If a pop-up appears asking about PasteBin, choose No.
If a pop-up appears asking to show you the log after the repair is done, choose Yes. This way, you can understand what was happening.
After the repair is done, shut down your computer.
If an instruction appears, remove your USB flash drive.
Power on your computer again.
Congratulations, you have successfully booted into Windows 10.

If you still fail to boot into Windows 10, do more research about any errors that appear on your screen.

A. C. Grayling Has a Funny Logic That God Makes Humans Commit Sins

Vanza Setia — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Understanding Grayling's logic

In religious discussion or even debate, we need to understand what the other group of people believes in. I do not know the religion of A. C. Grayling. But I assume that he is an atheist.

I do not know him at all. I never met him. I just found his book in a public library several days ago. It is The History of Philosophy. The book is very thick. "This guy must be smart," I thought.

I randomly opened a page and found the following:

For contrary to Augustine's claims, this latter makes God the cause of the evils that people commit.
—Chapter Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, The History of Philosophy, by A. C. Grayling

I had taken a picture of the page, and I could not write everything here because of copyright. I did not want to get this website taken down because of copyright violation. But I can summarize what he wrote in my own words.

He wrote about what Augustine said about sin. He said that Augustine believed that people commit sin because of their free will. Adam and Eve sinned because of their own free will. That is what he said about Augustine's view. But he tried to refute Augustine's view by claiming that Augustine's logic is inconsistent because the serpent was the cause of Adam and Eve committing sin. Then, because he argued that everything happened because of God's permission, he concluded that God is the one who started making humans commit sins.

Taking a clear stance

Now, Augustine is a saint. For sure, I believe he was a really wonderful Christian. But I am a follower of Christ. Nobody is perfect except Jesus Christ. I am not following any men, for every human is a sinner. Additionally, I do not know exactly what Saint Augustine wrote. But I am going to prove to you that A. C. Grayling is stupid for claiming that God is the starting point for humans to commit sin with his own logic.

Refuting Grayling

First of all, free will exists. Otherwise, God would not have needed to tell Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit. If God created Adam and Eve and understood that humans had no free will, God would not have needed to tell people any rules because God would simply control every human's action. But because free will exists, God tested Adam and Eve to see whether they would obey him or not. This means Grayling fails to understand the Bible.

Next, God did not want Adam and Eve to commit sin. Thus, God told Adam that he could eat everything except the forbidden fruit. Very simple! Otherwise, God could play a game with Adam without telling him that there was a fruit that could cause him to get kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This means Grayling's accusation starts crumbling because God did not want Adam to commit sin.

Furthermore, if free will does not exist and God controls everything, including making people commit sins, why does God punish sinners? Isn't that God causing them to commit sins? This is why, in Christianity, we do not believe in destiny. We are not stupid.

After that, the serpent did not force Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The serpent did not force Eve to put that forbidden fruit in her mouth. She had complete control over whether she ate it or rejected the serpent's temptation. In fact, in Grayling's own words, he wrote the following:

But this view is inconsistent with what Augustine has otherwise to accept: that the serpent persuaded Eve and Eve persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit – which means the cause of their sin lay outside them.
—Chapter Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, The History of Philosophy, by A. C. Grayling

He clearly wrote the word "persuaded." But he claimed that the cause of their sin was the serpent. He contradicted himself in one sentence. It looks like Grayling has a different definition of the word "persuade" because he may come from a different galaxy. He did not write "force" or "intimidate." He did not use the word "threaten." No. He wrote the word "persuade," and as far as I know, "persuade" means to influence through suggestion or advice.

This means the serpent tempted Eve, but it did not force Eve at all. Eve decided to eat the forbidden fruit willingly despite being told by Adam. Adam, in addition to that, did not eat that fruit because the serpent or Eve tied Adam up and made him eat the fruit against his will. He chose to eat it despite knowing God's command directly and despite knowing the consequences. Again, Grayling blamed everything bad that happened on God when God had told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit.

How about this way? If a police officer told you that you should not cross a red light and you got tempted to do it anyway because you were late, for example, do you have the power to choose? If you say you do not have the power of choice because of the penalty, you are an idiot. You are an idiot because you can cross a red light regardless of the rules. In fact, the rules are made because people can do that, and many people still do that even with the penalty. Without rules and penalties, the street would be in chaos because everybody could drive however they wanted. If you say you have the power to choose, that is free will. You decide to either obey or disobey the law.

More importantly, you do not blame the authority for making a rule not to cross a red light. Have you ever heard someone blame the authority for making rules to protect people? According to the stupid logic of Grayling, the authority is the source of crimes because they are the ones who make the rules and decide the punishments. Do people blame the authority for punishing pedophiles? Should the lawmakers allow pedophiles to rape kids? According to Grayling, the one who makes the rule is the one who makes people commit crimes. There would not be any criminals if there were no rules. This is simply stupidity from Grayling.

The same goes for the Adam and Eve story. God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit to prevent Adam from committing sin. Then, God kicked them out of the Garden of Eden because God is just. God punished the people who committed sins.

In short, I do not hate Grayling. I am not putting him down. Here I refute his stupid logic in his super thick book. The one who is inconsistent is A. C. Grayling because he thought that the one who is persuaded has no power to choose anything at all. If I persuade him to kill somebody, will Grayling kill that person, and I become the killer? Madness!

Letting Grayling know that he is stupid

If you know him, share this article with him. Let him laugh at his own stupidity.

Christ is Lord!