They're naive in the sense that they involve/entail nonempirical fantasies.
Or one can argue that there is. And ultimately they offer no demonstrable insights about the underlying reality that can't be inferred from standard QM.
Yes, the most sophisticated one.
I like it because I think that, despite what some might see as apparent superficiality, it's actually deeper than either the Bohmian or Everettian interpretations. I think that's why, imo, most physicists would agree with Peres' and Fuchs' take on QM, as opposed to the alternatives.
Bohmians and MWIers are reading the same meters and predicting the same probabilities as standard 'uninterpreted' QMers. They're just carrying some unwarranted philosophical baggage along with that.