I have been extremely confused about why anthropics is treated the way it is, I am asking for clarification. I will first explain my current position:

There is no such thing as an "observer." The problem with anthropic reasoning is the same as the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, namely, it invokes non-real magical properties of human minds which I thought we had safely dissolved at this point.

Take your pick of the various anthropic assumptions. Each of them treats the "observer" as some kind of ontologically granular spirit, and that there are somehow equal odds that you might have found your observer-spirit situated in the head of any given human throughout history and into the future. (Setting aside the unjustified assertion that my observer-spirit can inhabit human skulls but not animal skulls or distant alien skulls.) This sense that we have of ourselves as embodied discrete entities is an illusion, a holographic accident of physics.

You could not have been anyone but what you are - namely, one specific dynamic pattern of matter and energy embedded within physics.

If you've lived on an island your whole life with a hundred fellow tribespeople, you would not be right in saying, "There probably aren't any people on any other islands, because if there were a lot of other people, the odds would be really small that I was born on this island." I don't know the name for this error in thinking, but I'm sure it has one.

Perhaps I'm just profoundly misunderstanding the point of anthropics.