If the machine could invent it (whatever "it" is being claimed) without human intervention, then I would argue that "it" does not pass the non-obviousness test,

If the machine could invent it (whatever "it" is being claimed) without human intervention, then I would argue that "it" does not pass the non-obviousness test, since anybody who could operate the machine ("having ordinary skill in the art") would have invented it. If the machine doing the inventing is unique in some way (such as having been programmed or trained uniquely by skilled practisioners) such that nobody else could operate the machine to produce the same result, then the result was invented by the humans who built or operated the machine -- depending on whether the claimed invention is the result of a unique machine or unique operation. Regardless, however, most nations now have a first-to-file patent system whereby the patent for a claimed invention is granted to the first person who files a valid claim describing the invention, rather than by the first inventor -- so the point is almost entirely moot.