"Is there a flaw in the argument?" - I don't see a flaw because I can't see any argument in the first place.

How is the (let's say, quite likely) hypothesis that eventually we're going to create VR that's ingistinguishable from actual reality supposed to logically lead to the notion that there's a billion to one chance we're living in VR right now?

It feels like something along the lines of the "???? PROFIT!!!!" meme (originated from a South Park episode). Clearly a crucial step is missing