For me, one of the strongest arguments against the simulation hypothesis is one I haven't seen other make yet. I'm curious what people here think of it.

My problem with the idea of us living in a simulation is that it would be breathtakingly cruel. If we live in a simulation, that means that all the suffering in the world is there on purpose. Our descendants in the far future are purposefully subjecting conscious entities to the worst forms of torture, for their own entertainment. I can't imagine an advanced humanity that would allow something so blatantly immoral.

Of course, this problem largely goes away if you posit that the simulation contains only a small number of conscious entities (possibly 1), and that all other humans just exist as background NPCs, whose conciousness is faked. Presumably all the really bad stuff would only happen to NPCs. That would also significantly reduce the computational power required for a simulation. If I'm the only real person in the world, only things I'm looking at directly would have to be simulated in any sort of detail. Entire continents could be largely fictional.

That explanation is a bit too solipsistic for my taste though. It also raises the question of why I'm not a billionaire playboy. If the entire world is just an advanced computer game in which I'm the player, why is my life so ordinary?