My system uses both Augmented reality and computer vision, The first feature is: The user actor can scan a specific object and the computer vision should recognize it. The second feature is: The user actor can view a specific place using the augmented reality.
Each feature is a use case connected to the user, but do I also connect them to some sort of AI actors? and if so what is the suitable way to do it? Do I just say "Computer vision system", and "Augmented reality system" ?
This is a good start. However, there is a key misconception here:
These a two different concepts. There is of course some overlap: some higher level capabilities can be described in terms of goals. For example, an ERP can be expected to have accounting, warehouse management and sales administration features.
But features are more general: it can also describe technical capabilities that are not directly observable by the user (e.g. backup), capabilities that are not directly related to a specific set of behaviors (e.g. multilingual user interface), Or which are much more detailed (e.g. date picking feature)
If you're on features, you may consider non-UML techniques, such as a feature tree, or user-story mapping (which is a kind of feature tree constructed with user-stories).
In your diagram, the bulbs seem to show that the system offers, and not what the user wants to do. If you want to show the big-picture with use-cases, you need to relate the bubbles with user goals:
This might look like an unecessary philosophic debate. But it is not. Because the main benefit of use-cases is a goal-oriented approach. Framing the problem or the expectations correctly, may allow you to think more creatively at alternatives instead of locking you early in a pre-conceived solution.
The actors raise another question: are these actors autonomous and independent systems and do they matter to the user? Or are they just implementation details?
Formally, actors are external to the system, and moreover, the use-case should not depend on the internal structure of the system. So if the computer vision and the virtual reality system are in fact libraries, components, sub-systems of your system, they should not appear in the diagram.
Secondly, use-cases should offer observable result of value for actors. If the external system is dependent on your system and has no value on its own, then the use-case results cannot be of value to this system. For example, a DBMS are often viewed as candidate actors, but do not pass this test: the DBMS without the main system would be useless. If the system is not independent an autonomous, just remove it from the diagram to keep things simple.
Lastly, is, does the system actor matter to the other actors? If it makes no difference for your human users if an external system-actor intervenes, keep it simple and do not show the system-actor although you could. Because then again, it's more an implementation choice to rely on an external system than a requirement.
The way you denoted it is common practice. The so-called primary actor (which is who receives the added value from the system under consideration) is placed to the left and the so-called secondary actors (which only take part in and/or support the use case) are placed to the right. Depending on who the reader of the UC diagram will be their appearance will make sense or not. If you present it to some customer they are likely not interested in IT blurb. But for system designers it would be some important information.
