The laws of physics themselves allow for non determinism. And we can build neural networks whose structure and behavior we can’t predict.

If by non-determinism you are talking about randomness, that gives no more freedom than determinism: choice being random is as unfree as choice being determined.

As to predicting, predictability and determinism are orthogonal issues. Look into chaotic systems, for example, the Mandelbrot fractal. It is a very simple system, only one variable changing over time, system state is completely known at every step - but its progress is completely unpredictable yet completely deterministic.

The question of free will falls within the realm of things we haven’t yet answered. But if we conclude now that it doesn’t exist then there’s no reason to keep looking for an explanation.

I agree - and I personally have not concluded that free will does not exist. But with all I know about the world, I cannot deny the possibility either, because physical determinism is a very strong argument against free will. We won't solve this issue until we understand what consciousness is - and currently we have no idea what it is, at all. So yes, at the moment, it is wrong to conclude one way or the other.

Disappointingly, the most favored approach in philosophy, compatibilism, seems to just redefine free will as that which is internal, and ignores the hard problem - can there be free choice, choice that is not predetermined by the past?

And what about lucid dreams?

I brought up dreams merely as an example of a possibly similar illusion, to better illustrate my intent. I do not think that consciousness is an illusion.

(As to making choices in lucid dreams, the question always remains: are you conscious in the dream, or are you remembering being conscious in the dream? How could you ever tell the difference? You can't rely on your mind to make very reliable conclusions about that same mind.)