Explore vs Exploit

Should we explore or exploit?

My university, Minerva, is a school where we travel to 7 global cities in 4 years. As you can probably imagine, most people who come here love to explore — exploring different cultures, different dating and working styles, and meeting very different people. We are exposed to many different possibilities of lifestyle because of our exposure.

However, if you have ever studied successful individuals, most of them emphasize “compounding growth.” If you keep switching, searching, and never committing, you will get nowhere. You are left with no competitive advantage because great work requires focus and long-term commitment. That’s why I was in the commitment value group when I was in school. But what’s the problem with commitment? Well, if you commit to one thing, you can never try to taste other flavors of ice cream, even if they might actually suit you better than your original choice. Exploitation is constraining and can potentially lock you inside local optimal. That’s why people with commitment issues like to say, “I want to date around. Otherwise, how can I know what type of people I like?”

The ambiguity of defining explore vs exploit

However, I wanted to challenge this binary notion. As a graduate who is lost in their career, I decided to explore software engineering even though I have a background in data science. I don’t know if I will be interested in it, but I am committed to my actions. I not only build new projects but also engage in intense tutoring sessions with my friends and study the design philosophy of different systems while reading “The Dream Machine: to learn the entire history and evolution of the field, going beyond the obvious. Should my hard work be counted as exploring because it’s something new to me? Or does it lean more toward exploiting because I am committed to learning it so much for a period of time now? If I eventually combine my software skills to build a better tool for data analysis, is this exploration or exploitation then?

That’s why I’m challenging how to define explore vs. exploit here.

• Does trying out a new thing for a day count as exploration? Yes, for sure.
• Does trying out a new thing for a month count as exploration? Yes, for sure.
• Does trying out a new thing for three years and then stopping count as exploration? What about 5 years, 10 years? Well…

And I think you get the gist of my point. Although people like to mention the 10,000-hour rule for getting good at something, the actual duration of work to define exploring vs. exploiting is quite arbitrary and ambiguous. I know you might argue that time isn’t the best measurement of explore vs. exploit, but the contribution to a particular field is.

Let me give you another example. Claude Shannon the father of information theory, wrote “A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits” because he found relays (devices that open and close electric circuits) intriguing. He believed they could be represented using 0 and 1, similar to a logical system in mathematics. During that time, many people viewed this idea as creative but not particularly useful anywhere. However, this seemingly playful concept eventually became the cornerstone of the binary system in computers. Given that Shannon’s work spanned electrical engineering, mathematics, and computer science, should we classify him as an explorer in multiple fields or an exploiter due to his foundational contributions to digital communication systems and information technology?

If we use relationships as an example, it’s almost similar. A friend inspired me to think of this list of questions:

• How do I maintain myself while in a relationship?
• Is it possible to be in love while feeling peaceful and free from burdens?
• What are some myths about love that I want to let go of?
• How can I love someone in a way that doesn’t make myself and others feel imprisoned?

As someone who typically commits to a relationship, I find myself exploring a lot about myself during all the relationships I have. Am I exploiting because I commit to a person, or am I exploring because I am learning many new things about myself?

Reframing Exploration vs. Exploitation

What I am attempting to explore here is that the distinction between exploring and exploiting is essentially a matter of perspective. We can always frame our actions as committing and exploiting by finding common threads in something. And finding commonality is always possible through a higher level of abstraction. On the other hand, we can frame some of our actions as exploration by emphasizing the differences between the old and the new.

The specific definitions of exploration and exploitation don’t really matter because there is always fluidity and connectivity in learning across different fields, just as there is in learning about ourselves and our relationships. If we simply adopt the framing of exploration, we might lose sight of the bigger picture and the discovery of commonalities. If we simply adopt the framing of exploitation, we might lose the potential for creativity and insight from different perspectives.

Why do I want to explore the question of exploring vs. exploiting? Because I want to overcome my fear of both exploring and exploiting. I used to fear exploiting my interests and wanted to try every career because I didn’t want to commit to working on something I didn’t love the most. Nowadays, I am afraid of exploring because I worry that I cannot build on my learning and end up without expertise.

However, through my intense learning in software engineering recently and observing AI researchers explore machine learning, software engineering, psychology, and language, I have realized that the binary classification between exploration and exploitation is flawed. I don’t need to worry that learning software engineering is a waste of time, nor should I listen the bullshit of “commitment issues.” Embracing this ambiguity may sound daunting, but it also unlocks numerous possibilities for exploration within exploitation and exploitation with elements of exploration in our lives.