Scott Alexander argues against the fear of angering simulators by testing if we're in a simulation, stating that competent simulators would prevent discovery or expect such tests as part of civilizational development. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article suggesting we should avoid testing whether we live in a simulation to prevent potential destruction by the simulators. He argues that this concern is unfounded for several reasons: 1) Any sufficiently advanced simulators would likely monitor their simulations closely and could easily prevent us from discovering our simulated nature. 2) Given the scale of simulations implied by the simulation hypothesis, our universe is likely not the first to consider such tests, and simulators would have contingencies in place. 3) Grappling with simulation-related philosophy is probably a natural part of civilizational development that simulators would expect and allow. While computational intensity might be a more valid concern, Scott suggests it's not something we need to worry about currently. Shorter summary