Nice article! I hadn't seen those arguments against the simulation hypothesis.

I have my own argument, which I haven't seen elsewhere.

A major argument against the existence of God does not serve its original purchase (that is, it doesn't disprove that God exists) but it is (IMO) telling against the simulation hypothesis.

The objection is "the problem of evil" argument. How do you reconcile the existence of evil with the notion of a benevolent Creator? It doesn't work against base reality, but it does work against higher levels.

We'd never construct the theoretical simulations. The simulations would be banned by every conceivable cyber-ethics committee. There's no reason to believe the simulators are our moral inferiors: so they wouldn't do it either. Why is it morally wrong? Why is it more telling against the simulation hypothesis? Because of that factor of billions. The factor that makes the simulation hypothesis credible is the factor that amplifies the amount of pain and suffering. The simulators would have to be unimaginably evil to generate such suffering simply to assuage their curiosity. There's no reason to believe that, so there's no reason to believe we live in a simulation.

I agree that belief in the simulation hypothesis says a lot about us. That so many believe we'd do it, despite all that unnecessary suffering, is incredibly revealing.