That simpler interpretation is also equivalent to a simpler implementation that doesn’t require apparently-arbitrary resolutions of quantum probabilities (MWI). It’s essentially a question of where you hide the “weird”.
It seems likely to me that they’re both wrong, and the in-principle-untestability of all this points to our mental machinery just failing to map intuitive concepts onto this space, but I’m totally agnostic to this. I do find MWI more conceptually appealing.
Under aforementioned requirement, of course. If some sort of MWI is true, there may be just no way to confirm it, and that’s it.