[Question] Are there technical/​object-level fields that make sense to recruit to LessWrong?

LessWrong is about learn­ing ra­tio­nal­ity, and ap­ply­ing ra­tio­nal­ity to in­ter­est­ing prob­lems.

An is­sue is that solv­ing in­ter­est­ing prob­lems of­ten re­quires fairly deep tech­ni­cal knowl­edge of a field. To use ra­tio­nal­ity to help solv­ing prob­lems (es­pe­cially as a group), you need both peo­ple who have skills in prob­a­bil­ity/​meta-cog­ni­tion/​other-ra­tio­nal­ity skills, as well as the ac­tual skills di­rectly ap­pli­ca­ble to what­ever prob­lem is un­der dis­cus­sion.

But if you show up on LW and post some­thing tech­ni­cal (or even just “spe­cial­ized”) in a field that isn’t already well rep­re­sented on the fo­rum, it’ll be hard to have mean­ingful con­ver­sa­tions about it.

Else­where on the in­ter­net there are prob­a­bly fo­rums fo­cused on what­ever-your-spe­cial­iza­tion is, but those places won’t nec­es­sar­ily have peo­ple who know how to in­te­grate ev­i­dence and think prob­a­bil­is­ti­cally in con­fus­ing do­mains.

So far the LW user­base has a cluster of skills re­lated to AI al­ign­ment, some cog­ni­tive sci­ence, de­ci­sion the­ory, etc. If a tech­ni­cal post isn’t in one of those fields, you’ll prob­a­bly get bet­ter re­cep­tion if it’s some­how “gen­er­al­ist tech­ni­cal” (i.e. in some field that’s rele­vant to a bunch of other fields), or if it some­how starts one in­fer­en­tial unit away from the over­all LW user­base.

A plau­si­bly good strat­egy is to try to re­cruit a num­ber of peo­ple from a given field at once, to try to in­crease the sur­face area of “se­ri­ous” con­ver­sa­tions that can hap­pen here.

It might make most sense to re­cruit from fields that are close enough to the ex­ist­ing vaguely-defined-LW meme­plex that they can also get value from ex­ist­ing con­ver­sa­tions here.

Any­one have ideas on where to do out­reach in this vein? (Separately, per­haps: how to do out­reach in this vein?). Or, al­ter­nately, any­one have a vague-feel­ing-of-doom about this en­tire ap­proach and have al­ter­nate sug­ges­tions or rea­sons not to try?