Mostly, my thought is that "there probably exist real people out there somewhere, and we are probably not among them; we are probably mere simulations in their world" doesn't seem equivalent to "what it means to be a real person, or a real anything, is to be a well-defined abstract computation that need not necessarily be instantiated" (aka Dust theory, as has been said).

That said, I can't really imagine why I would ever care about the difference for longer than it takes to think about the question.

Sure, the former feels more compelling because it's framed as a status challenge, but if I do anything more than just superficially pattern-match it that pretty much dissolves... I have to be a lot more important than I am, relatively speaking, before the social status of my entire universe becomes a relevant consideration in my status calculations.

(To be clear, I am speaking solely for myself here. I do recognize that some folks here view themselves, individually, as important to the future development of our universe, and I can see how for those people the status of our universe as a whole might be an important consideration, and I'm not challenging that; I'm just asserting that I don't view myself as that important, and I believe I'm correct in that evaluation.)