The phrasing is unnecessarily problematic. You can’t argue start to finish that choice is illusory, and then anticipate that our knowing this will result better choices. That’s like saying there’s no such thing as lollipops, can never be such a thing as lollipops, and everything we ever thought, heard or believed about lollipops is false…and knowing this, we can begin to make better lollipops.
I think your thesis is that what we believe is choice is really just the inevitable outcome of initial conditions combined with uncontrollable input. A pachinko ball rattling it’s way down thru the pegs doesn’t choose to go left or right at each one, it simply reacts to each encounter with other balls and pegs in an automatic, unthinking way. Like us.
So perhaps the article should simply state coldly “I predict your unthinking, automatic responses to your emerging circumstances will be ‘better’ than before.”
And then we’d have to discuss what constitutes “better,” in world denuded of choice.