The rabbit part is pointless. It has to be a perfect rule-following rabbit that lives arbitrarily long. i.e., not an actual rabbit.

I'm not sure what the impossible rabbit adds to the argument, and it certainly takes something away.

I'm not sure this argument is any more plausible than the "evil genius" argument from Descartes.

I think that all it's saying is that given our limited reference frame within the universe, we can't judge what is "normal" and what is not. And that's basically a definitional observation.

I haven't read the article; is this the Chinese Room Argument?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/