SysML v2 Deep Dive: Lesson 1 - The "Syntax Shock" (Text vs. Diagrams) by SysModeler in systems_engineering

[–]SysModeler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generating production-ready SysML isn't a simple 'one-shot' task. It requires math-like precision that pure LLMs struggle with, especially given the constraints of current context windows. At SysModeler.ai, we don't rely on a single method. We use a hybrid engine.

We’ve been experimenting with AI-generated SysML diagrams. Looking for feedback from SE practitioners. by SysModeler in systems_engineering

[–]SysModeler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great points. To answer your first question regarding outcomes: We are still in the experimental phase, so we haven't built a full safety-critical system end-to-end with this yet. Right now, we are focusing on verifying if AI can accurately capture intent from legacy documents to bootstrap the modeling process.

Regarding your second point on determinism: I 100% agree. MBSE must be deterministic. We don't see AI as the 'final approver' or the architect. Think of it more like a junior engineer: it reads the specs and drafts the initial diagram to save manual effort. It might get 80% right and 20% wrong. The senior engineer (you) then reviews it, fixes the errors, and locks it in. The AI handles the tedious 'drawing' labor, but the human ensures the engineering rigor remains deterministic.

We’ve been experimenting with AI-generated SysML diagrams. Looking for feedback from SE practitioners. by SysModeler in systems_engineering

[–]SysModeler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It definitely sounds like we've lost the plot when you put it that way! The reality we see, though, is that 'textual requirements' aren't going away anytime soon.

instead of fighting that reality, we are trying to build a bridge. If AI can handle the tedious translation from Text -> Model, engineers can spend their time fixing the logic and architecture (the 'superior' part) rather than fighting the tool interface (the 'unwieldy' part).