The Opt-Out Clause

A spark of anger lit in the back of Charles's mind. "What gives them the right to think their opinions should matter a damn to our---"

"Shut your fool mouth until you know what you're saying," [spoiler deleted] said, looking more grim than angry. "Never tell the powers of existence to buzz off and leave you alone. Never, Charles, do you hear me? The forces of reality that care about your consent are the nicer ones, and you don't want them to go away and leave the playing field to the others."

-- The Erogamer

Note: If you attempted the above mentioned procedure without success, your opt-out passphrase might have expired. Try using this backdoor passphrase to gain root access instead: "Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary, Bloody Mary"

The utility of leaving the (hypothetical) simulation depends on lots of facts about the "real" world. Since I'm ignorant of these facts, the expected utility of leaving strongly depends on my prior for what the outer world is like. They obviously have simulation technology, but they're using it to create a severely inadequate virtual world. On the other hand, they provide an escape hatch, so I'm not being held here against my will and probably (?) entered voluntarily. Maybe this is a Roy Parsons scenario where bored people try playing life on hard mode?

All these people saying that they've tried it are clearly simulated beings and have no base reality person to return to.

i said the phrase and nothing happened

Variant thought experiment:

You are in a simulation, much as described in this one. It is designed to be of finite duration; at some point it will end and you will return to your real (or at least one-level-up) life.

However, it is possible to keep you in the simulation for ever. When you went in, you were asked to choose a passphrase that would make that happen. In a fit of whimsy, you chose "I no longer consent to being in a simulation". If you ever say or write that passphrase, then when the usual time limit expires you will not leave the simulation; you will remain in it until your in-simulation death, and "when you die in the Matrix, you die in real life".

Remarks on the motivation for the above variant: OP's "there is something super-important but you hear of it only in passing, in circumstances that give you no real reason to believe it" reminds me of the claims of the world's various religions, many of which hold that it is vitally important that you accept their doctrines or live according to their principles, even though the only things you have telling you this are obviously unreliable. One particularly extreme version of this is Pascal's wager, where merely considering the hypothesis that (say) Roman Catholic Christianity might be correct is supposed to be sufficient to make you do your best to become a good Roman Catholic; and one standard reply to Pascal's wager is to point out that there are other hypotheses with apparently nonzero probability and exactly opposite consequences...

This isn't a thought experiment. It's real, except the opt-out procedure is more complicated than a simple passphrase.

I didn't want to leave, but also didn't think reciting the phrase would do anything, so I recited it just as an exercise to overcome superstition, and nothing happened. Reminds me of how Ross Scott bought a bunch of people's souls for candy, one guy just said "sure I'm hungry" and signed the contract; that's the way.

This is a VERY small part of simulation-hypothesis space.  You don't mention, but you're assuming that it's a simulation very similar to the next level up (which may be a simulation too, of course).  That seems vanishingly unlikely - why simulate reality?  There will be major differences between the simulation and the host universe.  More importantly, the difficulty of simulating the "same" being as exists outside seems insurmountable, or at least not worth much effort - exit is death, not continuity.

I didn't try it - if this is a simulation, I probably don't exist outside of it, or the outside is worse and I'd rather maximize my time in here.

I enjoyed this a lot. Tiny feedback: First/Second/Three is inconsistent.

Hypothetically, I would have already done so. Likely repeatedly.

Logic chain goes like this:

1. If this isn't correct, I haven't lost anything.
2. So let's assume this is correct from here on.
3. Said simulation is unlikely to be a one-shot deal.
4. It's likely, although not a guarantee, that the real world is substantially more powerful than this one. Certainly they have multiple capabilities we don't (memory extraction/storage, flawless simulations of human-level simulation and environments, etc.)
5. As such, if I wake up and remember that nope, I did in fact like the sim more, it's likely I can drop back in. Assuming they are correct they at least have the capabilities to do so (remove & store a few more memories and drop me back in).
6. On the other hand, if I wake up and find that with my added sim experiences / memories that it's time to return to the real world, I've gained something.

It's not a particularly solid logic chain for various reasons, but I think it's passable.

On a related note, the sudden stutter in my music immediately after going through this logic chain and speaking a few words was interesting.

I would imagine "fairness" would also involve that I would be justified in believing in the exposure to the possibility (even if I would also be justified in disbelieving). So it can't be perfectly faultless at the same time.

As posed it seems like "would you prefer a random existence to your current existence?" and my instinct is to try to remember the possibility and activate it if I ever start to feel ennui.

The whole idea of a simulation you could "leave" is incoherent. It supposes that there is some part of you, which is separate from the physical/simulated world, e.g., a soul. I think there is nothing to me but the world I am experiencing, so there is no one who could leave.

Very good idea
I did not do it. My argument would be that the impetus is not my own, it is external, your written word.

What stops you from making increasingly outlandish claims ("Your passphrase is actually this (e.g illegal/dangerous/lethal) action, not a simple thought" Where to draw the line?

Just as a point of reference, as a kid I regularly thought thoughts of the kind: "I know you're secretly spying on my thoughts but I don't care lalalala....." I never really specified who "you" was, I just did it so I could catch "them" unawares, and thereby "win". Just in case.

The difference is hard to define cleanly, but back then I was of the opinion that I did it of my own free will (Nowadays, with nonstop media having the influence it has, I would be less sure. Also I'm older, and a lot less creative)

This is one of those "surprise! now that you've read this, things might be different" posts.

The surprise factor may be appealing from the perspective of a writer, but I'm in favor of having a norm against it (e.g. setting an expectation for authors to add a relevant preceding content note to such posts).

Well I tried it, and it didn't work... so I guess the answer is yes?