Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[Loren Pechtel]

You believe we are in a simulation, which has been shown to be impossible,

It talked about a simulation that required Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to be addressed in order to work. AI simulations, which it made no mention of, don't require that.

AI simulations are algorithmic. The cited article says no such algorithms can succeed in doing what you claim.

No algorithm can provide a perfect simulation--but that doesn't mean we can detect the failures.

 

[excreationist]

You believe we are in a simulation, which has been shown to be impossible,

It talked about a simulation that required Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to be addressed in order to work. AI simulations, which it made no mention of, don't require that.

AI simulations are algorithmic. The cited article says no such algorithms can succeed in doing what you claim.

No algorithm can provide a perfect simulation--but that doesn't mean we can detect the failures.

If the glitch is severe enough it could be blamed on psychosis or hallucinations, etc. So maybe next to no kind of glitch could be used as proof of a simulation.
There's also this: (though I don't see it as evidence of a simulation) (there would also be better "glitch" photo collections)

30 Photos Showing Real-Life Glitch In The Matrix

Seems like these glitches in matrix happen all the time!

www.demilked.com

I'm not sure if these are fake:

32 Disturbing Photos That Look Like Real-Life Glitches In The Matrix

When reality fails to render.

pleated-jeans.com

A possible counter-argument is that they're fake. Or it is real and there is a rational explanation for it.

 

[excreationist]

BTW my full list of counter-arguments against evidence for a simulation (or the supernatural, etc) is coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.

 

[bilby]

A possible counter-argument is that they're fake. Or it is real and there is a rational explanation for it.

Indeed. It's probably both.

Faking pictures is easy, and click bait sites make money from weird photos.

Everyone carries a phone that can take pictures; If they see something that looks a bit odd, they'll likely photograph it, and the way cameras on phones work can lead to odd effects when capturing moving objects (and SLR cameras can do odd things too).

Click-bait sites like those in your links are collecting real-but-coincidental; real-but-oddly effected by shutter movement and/or image processing; and fake-but-convincing pictures, and using the human tendency to notice oddness to amplify the WTF factor (one coincidence is strange, thirty are stranger still) but to ignore the aggregation of strangeness (this website is a collection of a few dozen weird photos, but to get these, a few billion photos were taken).

It's called "confirmation bias". We are excited by the few dozen photos that seem to support our hypothesis, while utterly disregarding the literally billions of photos that don't support it at all.

A one in a million coincidence, in a world of eight billion people, happens 8,000 times every single day. A few dozen photos of such coincidences are to be expected. I am a bit surprised that these are all (or the best) that click-bait sites can find.