> [S]ome may recall the Xerox debacle about 10 years, when it turned out copiers were helpfully "optimizing" images by replacing digits with others in invoices,

> [S]ome may recall the Xerox debacle about 10 years, when it turned out copiers were helpfully "optimizing" images by replacing digits with others in invoices, architectural drawings, etc. This is not even AI. JBIG2 allows a reuse of once-decoded image patches because it's quite reasonable for bi-level images like fax documents. It is true that similar glyphs may be incorrectly groupped into the same patch, but such error is not specific to patch-based compression methods (quantization can often lead to the same result). The actual culprit was Xerox's bad implementation of JBIG2 that incorrectly merged too many glyphs into the same patch.