Also, kind of a weird twist, but Ferrucci happens to be my roommate's first uncle (he's a management major and never mentioned it since him and I don't really talk CS all that often), so I might be meeting Dr. F personally afterward - making the question asking even more feasible.
Ask HN: What should I ask Dr. David Ferrucci, the leader of IBM's Watson project
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Ask HN: What should I ask Dr. David Ferrucci, the leader of IBM's Watson project
#2Let us know the question you end up asking him and his answer, if you can! Thanks!
Re: Ask HN: What should I ask Dr. David Ferrucci, the leader of IBM's Watson project
#3Seriously, I presume that his budget was large, but not inexhaustible. Ask him what he could have accomplished if he'd thrown more hardware/people at the problem.
Re: Ask HN: What should I ask Dr. David Ferrucci, the leader of IBM's Watson project
#4You're his nephew's roommate? Ask him "May I send you my resumé?" Seriously, I presume that his budget was large, but not inexhaustible. Ask him what he could have accomplished if he'd thrown more hardware/people at the problem.
That being said, I think the latter part of your comment this could be a good question. I think asking him what issues he ran into - which might be more appropriate after he explains what the particulars of the project were/are - might be a little more generic though.
As an aside, after I posted this I went and did a little research on IBM's site - which is more marketing fluff than technical explanation - and one of the things they emphasized was that Watson was built as a custom solution to overcome some (ambiguous) lack of technical feasibility with existing hardware. One of the questions that came to mind after hearing this was why they couldn't just use the same algorithm/ of a blue gene/X. Basically, what differentiates Watson from any other distributed super computer, if anything (significant). I imagine theres no big difference, probably just tweaks in networking types, cpu counts/speeds, etc. - things that would've made Watson doable, but not optimally doable.