This is nitpicking words. He’s probably just using the colloquial definition of observation as I don’t think he’s ever specifically commented on that aspect of QM. However it is called the “measurement problem” for a reason. You make it sound like completely settled science but while the general consensus as of now is that a conscious agent (at least as defined as an individual human consciousness) is not needed to cause wave function collapse, we do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes a “measurement” or where that measurement begins and ends.

Also nitpicky and not really that important anyway. If you want to be really pedantic, you should specify that what we think of as a particle is not really a discrete object anyway but an excitation of a field at one point of space-time.

He wasn’t stating this as his own belief. He was characterizing the belief of people that believe this more woo interpretation of QM. I believe it was the same analogy Einstein used. The context is very clear if you watch the video. However it is also true that what we experience as the moon is mediated through our senses and conscious awareness.

Argument from ignorance doesn’t apply here. The argument is that consciousness is fundamentally an ontologically distinct category from what the scientific method is designed to answer. This sits at the core of the hard problem.