Should famous people conclude it’s more likely than not they are at the center of a simulation?

This is a question I thought of surrounding the problem of other minds (Given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?)

Should someone who is very famous conclude they are likely the center of a simulation (In a simulation where there are few, if any other actual minds)? The question for this individual would be independent of whether or not this person is actually the center of a simulated world. The question is what they should conclude is most likely to be true.

Just for illustrative purposes, I’ll assume Bill Gates is currently the most famous/highest name recognition person in the world. In a world made entirely of other conscious minds, probabilities apply (there would be roughly a 1 in 8 billion chance of becoming the most famous person in the world). If one is the center of a simulation (where they are the only or one of few conscious minds and others are essentially “non playable characters”), then the chance of becoming the most famous person in the world is unknown. Thus, it seems rational from Bill’s perspective to conclude he is not in the outcome that would require nearly insurmountable odds (1 in 8 billion) to be true.

I recognize there’s the law of inevitability – Someone must be the most famous person. I also recognize that if a world is in fact comprised of other minds, not famous people looking at Bill have no reason to think he’s the center of a simulation. All the not famous people would have access to their own conscious experience. But for Bill Gates himself, considering the problem of other minds – Should he conclude he is more than likely simulated – That he became famous because he’s the center of a simulation (as opposed to stumbling into an incredibly unlikely outcome). The question for Bill would be independent of whether or not he is actually the center of a simulated world. The question is what he should conclude is most likely to be true.

The answer may hinge around this - Should we conclude we have absolutely zero knowledge of why a simulator would create/simulate a mind? Or should we conclude we have little, yet likely a non-zero amount of knowledge about why a simulator would create/simulate a mind. One would derive this information from thinking about what type of person they would find it interesting/worthwhile to simulate. One could think about what they do simulating nonconscious characters in a video game. I haven’t played “The Sims” video games series since the early days, but I think in newer versions you can pick careers for your character. It seems like most people playing the game (including myself) would try to make their Sim character have an “outlier” outcome to make things more interesting. For example, they might have their Sim run for president of the country. This would be opposed to much more common outcomes- for example, simulating a middle-class accountant who is not famous.

Note – I recognize there are an infinite number of outcome distributions one could look at. But being the most famous person in the world is what I would refer to as a “seemingly intuitively significant outcome”. As in it intuitively feels that being the most famous person in the world is more “noteworthy” than, for example, say, having the oldest living tree in the world in your yard.