While I think it's a slightly more complex issue than just semantics, another undefined term that will likely cause problems for your argument is the assumption of identity you use with "I". One of the more widely discussed issues of late is whether there is a coherent identity you can posit as "I", and if so, what its boundaries and qualities are. Is this something like the Kantian unity of apperception? Does it necessarily include my body and my consciousness? Personally I am sympathetic to the view that "I" is merely a kind of awareness of ourselves after the fact. But my point is, you can see that if I adopt this definition of "I", I am making a subterranean assumption that refutes your criteria, and vice versa. Discussions about free-will are downstream of discussions about consciousness and identity.

Scientists almost always betray complete misunderstanding--or a only shallow comprehension--of core philosophical issues when they make these claims. Like, who is that dude who built an entire public intellectual persona based on his ability to sell his inability to grasp the naturalistic fallacy? Sam Harris?

That and the replicability crisis have made me seriously sceptical about contemporary scientists' intelligence and integrity. These people do so much damage to philosophy and their respective field in the process of making these click-bait claims. Students in STEM should be required to take epistemology and philosophy of science classes in undergrad. Maybe that would help, I dunno. Probably not. Ignorance has shown itself these past few decades to be more influential and resilient a social force than education.