It's a very interesting idea, but the potential for hallucinations reminds me of JBIG2, a compression format which would sometimes substitute digits in faxed do

It's a very interesting idea, but the potential for hallucinations reminds me of JBIG2, a compression format which would sometimes substitute digits in faxed documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBIG2#Character_substitution_errors_in_scanned_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBIG2#Character_substitution_e... > In 2013, various substitutions (including replacing "6" with "8") were reported to happen on many Xerox Workcentre photocopier and printer machines. Numbers printed on scanned (but not OCR-ed) documents had potentially been altered. This has been demonstrated on construction blueprints and some tables of numbers; the potential impact of such substitution errors in documents such as medical prescriptions was briefly mentioned. > In Germany the Federal Office for Information Security has issued a technical guideline that says the JBIG2 encoding "MUST NOT be used" for "replacement scanning". I think the issue is that even if your compression explicitly notes that it's lossy, or if your OCR explicitly states that it uses an LLM to fix up errors, if the output looks like it could have been created by an non-lossy algorithm, users will just assume it that was. So in some sense it's better to have obvious OCR errors when there's any uncertainty.