What do you think?

This.

Pshaw.

Their position relies on the validity of the following inference.

But the inference is not valid and there is no contradiction.

Had the chip fired he would not have been able to do otherwise.

Had he attempted to do otherwise the chip would have fired.

Ergo, he was not able to do otherwise.

Compare:

Had the bomb gone off the bridge would have been destroyed.

Had he tried to cross the bridge the bomb would have gone off.

Ergo, the bridge was destroyed.

The situation is more like that of Becky and the avalanche than the authors believe.

The avalanche did not independently happen, Becky made it happen.

And Huntington freely killed Bunny, the chip did not fire and make him do it.

Yes, yes. Morality is bunk. But there is logic to it, all the same!