So what you’re basically proposing is that instead of saying “NONCENTRAL FALLACY!!1!!1!”, people simply don’t mention the fallacy and instead compare the possibly-noncentral element to the typical element of the group and explain why it’s different?
Because if so, I would agree, but I don’t think it’s unique to the noncentral fallacy. In general, if someone uses a fallacious argument, you should be able to directly show the problem, without mentioning the fallacy by name.
… however, what you are doing is still, essentially, saying that he ‘is the good kind of criminal’, just in a more complicated way that the people you are debating with hopefully won’t notice.
Problem one: It would require the human to be able to correctly design utopia (or at least not a dystopia—being able to design a not-dystopia is probably rarer than one might think).
Problem two: There are moral problems in letting an AI simulate a human in sufficiently high detail.
Problem three: In certain cases, the human might command things that they do not want. In particular, if the human-module is simulated as essentially a human within the AI, the AI might wirehead the human and ask if humans in general should be wireheaded (or something like that).