So all predictions are conclusions but not all conclusions are predictions. I.e, a deductive argument comes to a conclusion, but, as we know, inferential methods aren't deductive.
I was commenting from the perspective of an analogy from personal experience of my own conscious.
This is a pop-sci article, so take it with a grain of salt, but there is a growing body of research that attempts to frame many cognitive processes as inherently predictive (inferential?). I think this view arises pretty naturally when you start thinking about us having a 'model' of reality that we is updated based on sensory information, but I digress.
I think I see where you're coming from.
A human might not be 'predicting', since the term has some kind of temporal element connotation. But we could say that it's 'inferring' what the photo represents?
All of our sensory systems work this way - we use an enormous amount of context to bubble up predictive categories and the collect marginal amounts of information until one prediction dominates over all others.
When one doesn’t, we get gestalt like illusions; like the cubes that are projected both forwards or backwards - or dresses that are blue and black and white and gold - or laurel and yanni in perfect harmony, etc.