(There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that there's nothing magical about consciousness, and that free will in all likelihood doesn't exist. I find this super uncomfortable, but there is also nothing I can do about, so I have to continue to function as though free will did exist -- which is exactly what would happen if it didn't.)
I'm glad I'm not the only one to come the this conclusion. I mean, I knew that statistically it was virtually impossible that I was the only one, but I hadn't yet talked to anyone who thought this.
No.
Fundamentally, this is an attempt to solve a logic puzzle through empiricism, and that doesn't work.
Things like Roko's Basilisk and questions of free will vs. determinism are rationalistic games, intended to bend our brains a little bit. They don't have a real answer, because for any proposed solution, there's another "what if" right around the corner that will make the game more difficult. (In this case: since the basilisk is capable of subverting free will to begin with, what if it was also affecting your judgement of the relative likelihoods?)
The danger for some people is letting the games begin to alter their behavior in the real world. It's a little bit like letting code golf challenges start to affect your day-to-day coding style.
After rationally working your way through puzzles like these, at some point, to continue functioning at all, you have to make a completely irrational decision and simply choose an epistemology that you're comfortable with.
...and wait for scientists to prove you wrong. :-) (There seems to be an increasing amount of evidence that there's nothing magical about consciousness, and that free will in all likelihood doesn't exist. I find this super uncomfortable, but there is also nothing I can do about, so I have to continue to function as though free will did exist -- which is exactly what would happen if it didn't.)