I find the first critique of the simulation hypothesis unconvincing: there might be a great filter that prevents civilisations from ever reaching the level of technological sophistication required to simulate worlds like ours, but we cannot infer that from within the simulation.

The second critique is that such a civilisation might not want to simulate us, but there might be thousands of such civilisations and surely at least one would be curious.

The third reason, that consciousness simply cannot be simulated, is also a judgement we would have from within the simulation. In fact, if this is a simulation, it would perhaps help explain why consciousness seems so mysterious and unlike anything else.

However, when taken together, I do believe these three critiques undermine the motivations behind taking the simulation hypothesis seriously. The simulating civilisation would need extremely advanced technology, a reason to do it, and a compatible metaphysics of consciousness being true - all at the same time!

I would also like to add that some might be apathetic towards the possibility of this being a simulation, or question whether virtual worlds are less valuable than real worlds, if they can fulfil exactly the same conditions for our existence.