That's very different from saying "you are a random observer-moment" as you did before.

I meant observer-moment. That's what I think of when I think of the word "observer", so it's easy for me to make that mistake.

If I am now a specific observer - I've already observed my present - then I can drastically narrow down my anticipated future observations.

If present!you anticipates something, it makes life easy for future!you. It's useful. I don't see how it applies to anthropics, though. Yous aren't in a different reference class than other people. Even if they were, it can't just be future!yous that are one reference class. That would mean that whether or not two yous are in the same reference class depends on the point of reference. First!you would say they all have the same reference class. Last!you would say he's his own reference class.

I do not treat myself as a random person; I know which person I am.

I think you do if you use UDT or TDT.