That's the view of most physicists these days. Until something is being observed, it doesn't exist, and the observer, it would seem, has to conform to certain constants and constraints before becoming adept/conscious/sentient enough to qualify as an observer. Such as being - a person, maybe? Or something with a brain? Something like us, surely, some higher form of life to look down on the lowly nanoscopic world and be able to judge whether a table is one or not.
Long ago there was a famous quantum question posed in bars and cafes - if a tree falls in the forest when no-one is there, does it make any sound? This soon became outdated when quantum questions posed by the likes of Schroedinger's cat came into public view, and right now public view seems wide open to the possibility that quantum physics has something important to say, at some point in time.
This has nothing to do with our observation per se, but everything to do with the big question of who observes what. Einstein grumbled in 1924, "I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only the moment to jump off [its energy level in the atom], but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler..."
Double slit would seem to suggest that quantum particles do indeed make decisions, based on factors we can't possibly determine unless we were to be in there in that field with them. But just as we don't know we're waves because to all outer appearances we are particles, there's no reason to suggest even the most intellectual electron is any better off than we are.