  Carmosino et al. (2016) demonstrated that natural proofs of circuit lower
bounds for $\Lambda$ imply efficient algorithms for learning
$\Lambda$-circuits, but only over \textit{the uniform distribution}, with
\textit{membership queries}, and provided $\AC^0[p] \subseteq \Lambda$. We
consider whether this implication can be generalized to $\Lambda \not\supseteq
\AC^0[p]$, and to learning algorithms which use only random examples and learn
over arbitrary example distributions (Valiant's PAC-learning model).
  We first observe that, if, for any circuit class $\Lambda$, there is an
implication from natural proofs for $\Lambda$ to PAC-learning for $\Lambda$,
then standard assumptions from lattice-based cryptography do not hold. In
particular, we observe that depth-2 majority circuits are a (conditional)
counter example to the implication, since Nisan (1993) gave a natural proof,
but Klivans and Sherstov (2009) showed hardness of PAC-learning under
lattice-based assumptions. We thus ask: what learning algorithms can we
reasonably expect to follow from Nisan's natural proofs?
  Our main result is that all natural proofs arising from a type of
communication complexity argument, including Nisan's, imply PAC-learning
algorithms in a new \textit{distributional} variant (i.e., an ``average-case''
relaxation) of Valiant's PAC model. Our distributional PAC model is stronger
than the average-case prediction model of Blum et al. (1993) and the heuristic
PAC model of Nanashima (2021), and has several important properties which make
it of independent interest, such as being \textit{boosting-friendly}. The main
applications of our result are new distributional PAC-learning algorithms for
depth-2 majority circuits, polytopes and DNFs over natural target
distributions, as well as the nonexistence of encoded-input weak PRFs that can
be evaluated by depth-2 majority circuits.
