Unconvinced
I do not say we are living in a simulation, but I'm not 100% convinced by the narrowness of the explanation given. As others here have said, if a simulation includes (a) programmatically influencing the "thought" processes of those being simulated, (b) is capable of summarising what is *purportedly* ineffably complex, and (c) uses a degree of randomisation which we are *encouraged* to view as quantum weirdness, then I don't see that our apparent perceptions of the universe can be trusted as proof that it ain't a simulation.
Indeed, you might even argue that presenting the appearance of quantum ineffability (weirdness, if you like: or anything that hinges from Einstein's observations about "spookiness") is a very neat way of making it impossible for the Simulated to prove that that is what they are. If the rules presented as fundamental by the simulation had stopped at Newtonian, classical mechanics, then sometime between 1700 and 1905 we'd have penetrated the fiction and the game would be up.
In short, you can't disprove a simulation theory by assuming that the perceptions those doing the disproving are NOT being interfered with. Indeed, it would seem a logical contingency to apply.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
