Predictions from ML models support human decision making in several fields, including high-stakes ones such as healthcare and the judiciary. Yet, we still lack a clear understanding of how decision makers learn from ML-based decision support (ML-DS). In this paper, we introduce a general computational framework, the 2-Step Agent, to capture this process. As a prediction from an ML model contains information about the training data, a prediction can also be used for inference. Our framework models (i) how a prediction for a new observation affects the beliefs of a rational Bayesian agent, and (ii) how this change in beliefs affects the estimation of causal effect, the downstream decision, and the subsequent outcome. In addition to the framework itself, we make three contributions. First, for the linear Gaussian setting, we derive a tractable solution for the challenging Bayesian inference problem we introduced, i.e. one in which the agent infers from an ML prediction. Second, we experimentally identify conditions under which ML-DS is beneficial. Third, we show that a single misaligned prior belief can be sufficient for ML-DS to lead to worse downstream outcomes compared to no decision support even when the ML model is well-specified and the agent is perfectly rational. Hence, even under ideal conditions, ML-DS can do more harm than good.