What kind of thing do you mean by "this type of thing"? Why do you think it degrades bayesian priors?
Life is, among other things, a constant quest to better understand the world around us. For every "real discovery" there is a ton of noise. Most of that noise can be easily discarded, some look more convincing. This particular instance looked more convincing.
We know that modern imaging equipment is very complex. You shoot a picture and complicated processes happen which were optimised by thousands of engineers to produce a good looking photo. In the past we have seen that such complex pipelines can introduce plausible looking artefacts in a different context: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres...
This is why it could be possible that maybe something similar happens with the camera app. People investigated, and it turned out that that is not the case.
For every breakthrough in our understanding there were thousands of perhaps and maybes. For every eureka moment, there is a bin full of superluminal neutrino experiments. This is normal and part of the process of reasoning about the world.
If your thinking processes get damaged by encountering as of yet unexplained phenomenon then your brain is broken and you should ask for a refund.
"There wasn't an error but there could have been" is true, but as a reason to support invalid data it's very wrong.
> If your thinking processes get damaged by
What.
They just said wrong data makes them (and others) more likely to make mistakes in the future. None of this weird strawman.
First of all, there is no wrong data here. Twitter user X said their iphone did a funny thing. Twitter user X attached a snippet of the image and said they think the iphone can overlay leafs in certain circumstances over faces. That is it. If your conclusion from that is that "iphones has AI magic which overlays leafs on faces for sure" that is your hasty conclusion and it is on you. The data is not wrong, your conclusion is wrong.
> None of this weird strawman.
:( sombremesa drawn a hasty conclusion. When they realised that it is unsupported they said (direct quote) "I need to be more careful about what I click on (and let into my head..."
Which basically says: I should be less curious because look here, I ended up believing the wrong thing.
The problem is not being curious, but drawing hasty conclusions and believing the wrong thing.
They should stay curious, let a lot of information in their head, but engage in critical thinking. Read the weird twitter thread purporting to show the weird bug and think: What if the twitter user is mistaken? Is it possible that the picture doesn't show what they think it shows? What other possible explanations there are? And so on and so on.
That strategy is much more widely applicable, more robust against even intentional deceptions and leads to ultimately better understanding of the world.