There is a significant difference between optimizing ads and HFT.
By optimizing ad revenues, you are increasing the number of people who find a product which they find valuable. This is useful - some people are better off than they would be otherwise.
A significant portion of HFT is simply about winning a race. The first to trade gets the benefits. Doing a better job of HFT merely redistributes the benefits of trade rather than creating them.
(Of course, there are other more useful aspects of HFT. Providing liquidity where none existed before is useful, and providing a better bid when you lost the race (i.e., if you lost the race to bid $10.01 first, you can win the race by bidding $10.02) is also useful. But I don't think the criticism of wasted effort is off the mark.)
Your point then that Adsense is "significantly different" seems to rely on the notion that it creates value (aiding the discovery process) rather than "merely redistribut[ing] the benefits of the trade".
You've basically already pointed out that HFT has value of some sort to some people (other than the guys who rake in the cash), so that makes it harder for me to see what the significant difference is.
The way I see this is: 2 groups of people (goog engineers and hfts) engaging in activities that deliver value to some people (and annoy the hell out of others). Should we consider acting in ways to prevent them from pursuing their activities; if so, _why_ are we doing that, and are we even targeting the more egregious transgression?
The "Is HFT good" debate is distinct from the point I'm making , so I'd rather have that in another thread. yummyfajitas, I'd be happy to chat with you offline about that, or in person anywhere in NYC.
The only significant difference I would argue for is a matter of degree. The job of an Adwords programmer is mainly delivering better ads (rather than simply moving equivalent ads to the top), while the job of an HFT programmer is mainly about being the first to trade.
Some HFT is beneficial. Too much wastes talent, but is otherwise harmless. I wouldn't advocate heavy handed regulatory solutions, such as banning all HFT - some HFT is useful, and have no faith in the ability of regulators to get the right balance. I'm just giving my perspective that the wasted talent argument isn't a crazy one.
Always interested in meeting new people, will send you an email.
By optimizing ad revenues, you are increasing the number of people who find a product which they find valuable. This is useful - some people are better off than they would be otherwise.
A significant portion of HFT is simply about winning a race. The first to trade gets the benefits. Doing a better job of HFT merely redistributes the benefits of trade rather than creating them.
(Of course, there are other more useful aspects of HFT. Providing liquidity where none existed before is useful, and providing a better bid when you lost the race (i.e., if you lost the race to bid $10.01 first, you can win the race by bidding $10.02) is also useful. But I don't think the criticism of wasted effort is off the mark.)