So, yes, sometimes the copyediting software can suck, and sometimes the software engineers will try to make it "better" like when Word, Zoom, or Canvas updates to a new version without doing enough UX assessments and actually makes more problems. But those are old fashioned human errors, not AI.

"... The journal trialled a production workflow that inadvertently introduced the formatting errors to which the editors refer. We had already acted on their feedback and reverted to the journal's previous workflow earlier in 2024."

"We do want to address an important inaccuracy in the statement issued by the outgoing editors, specifically the incorrect linking of a formatting glitch to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in our production processes. We do not use AI in our production processes...

It is basically "dumb" software that uses automated scripts as well as humans for formatting, and depending on how the file is formatted, errors can be introduced. It's no more AI than the "Sentence case" option in MS Word is. The official statement from Elsevier follows in the next comment:

There are original reports from the 1990s on various aspects of the excavations, and all the original documentation, field notes, photos, maps, etc. went with the materials for any desired further study. No new work was done.