One of them is obviously Musk. I could guess on the other, but it would only be based on the "wildness" of the other billionaire's imagination.
His argument that our world is most likely a simulation does seem logical given our current knowledge. However, breaking out of the simulation is completely another matter, more in line with Hollywood thinking than with anything that scientists can be engaged to do, at least currently.
EDIT: aside -- "Microcosmic God" [1] was a great short story along these lines
For example, if light did not have a speed limit, and interacted with the entire universe instantly, this would be very hard to simulate. You would save resources by giving light a speed limit.
We also expect that they might abstract out the nitty gritty details of how things work at the atomic level. If you don't really care that much about how very small particles interact with each other, you might have these numerous calculations evaluated lazily, when they are "observed" by the higher level entities.
Things get really interesting when you start thinking about what kind of bugs a god programmer might be likely to make when designing their simulation.
Are there any weird natural processes, that would be much more elegant if our equations modeling them were changed very slightly, almost as if the equation was a mistake in the first place? Another attack avenue is to combine two natural processes in unexpected ways, to try and find "edge cases".
On a different note, does simulation hypothesis strike anyone else as the idea God just explained in pseudo scientific/computing terms?
The simulation argument is one that can be supported or argued against using evidence.
For example, if scientists find some new nature process that would be very difficult to simulate, (infinite speed of light is one such example) then that is strong evidence that we aren't in a simultion.
Of course, even if we keep observing things about the universe that would make it easier to simulate, that doesn't mean we actually are. It could just all be a coincidence. Or maybe it doesn't make any sense for a universe to be difficult to simulate.
The basic idea is to ask the question "Assume someone lives in a simulation. What would that person be likely/unlikely to observe?". and "Assume someone does NOT live in a simulation. What would they be likely/unlikely to observe?" And see how much this stuff matches up with reality.
That's actually a pretty cool idea for a movie. Scientists hacking the universe to achieve alchemy and time travel. Maybe it could be a sequel to the Matrix. It's strange how they only ever made that one Matrix movie.
Interesting to consider: if we ever discovered ourselves to be living in a simulation and attempted to do something about it, would the simulator simply reset the simulation (a la The Matrix trilogy)? Or would the simulator be intrigued by our self-awareness and allow the simulation to continue?
But anyhow, that's enough of a digression for one day.
And then there's the weirdness beyond M31: According to the more conservative cosmologists, an alien superpower – maybe a collective of Kardashev Type Three galaxy-spanning civilizations – is running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath.
You can find smart, rational, deep thinkers who adhere to any and all of the world's major and minor religions, as well as atheism.
You don't even need to take a position on religion to conclude that no-one really knows what's going on.