Technology Comparisons and Reflection: How the Six Topics Fit Together

Last updated:

Emerging technologies are easier to judge when you compare them side by side and ask how they connect. This page compares the six topic areas on this site, shows how they can work together, sets out the trade-offs the sources describe, and offers suggested reflection questions. It is a guide to comparing technologies in context, not a ranking.

At dusk, a mobile network mast with signal arcs on the left, a drone flying overhead, an industrial sensor on a large pipe in the foreground, a robot arm beside a factory building and a person in a headset touching a glowing holographic engine model on the right, with a city skyline and thin glowing lines linking them.
An illustration of a possible scene combining a mobile mast, a drone, a pipe sensor, a robot arm and a person using a headset. It shows possible relationships, not a real site or a documented deployment. AI-generated illustration (generator not recorded).

Short answer

  • The six areas are different kinds of thing: one is a category (emerging technologies), two are connectivity and sensing (IoT and 5G), and three are machines and interfaces (drones, robots, XR). Some overlap.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
  • They can work together, but need not. IoT can use many networks, not only 5G,[3, 7] and where the sources document a combination we say so; where they do not, we label it a possibility.
  • No technology is better in every context. The sources describe benefits and limits that depend on place, rules, infrastructure and who is affected.

How to read this page. Numbers in square brackets point to the sources under References. A statement without a number is our own plain-language explanation, interpretation or reflection prompt, not a research finding. Information that changes quickly was checked on 28 October 2026.

Why compare emerging technologies?

Few technologies work alone. Researchers who study technology describe a general-purpose technology as one that tends to work together with other technologies,[8] and the effects of a technology can take decades to show up.[8] Comparing technologies helps you see what each one depends on, where they overlap and where the evidence is strong or thin. This page draws on the other six pages of this series; follow the links there for the detail.

How do the six technology areas compare?

They differ in purpose, in what they depend on and in what limits them. The table summarises each area in one row. A technology can appear in more than one column of real life: a robot can be an IoT device, and a drone can be a robot. We cover each on its own page: Emerging Technologies, Internet of Things, 5G and Beyond, Drone Technology, Robotics and AR, VR and Mixed Reality.

Six technology areas compared (the sources differ in age and strength, so read each cell as a pointer, not a ranking)
TechnologyMain purposeEnabling technologiesTypical applicationsConnectivityPotential benefitsLimitations and risks
Emerging technologies (in general)A label for technologies that are radically novel, growing fast, expected to matter and still uncertain.[1]Varies. A general-purpose technology tends to work together with other technologies.[8]Depends on the technology. The other five pages are examples.Varies.Full economic effects can take decades to appear.[8]Uncertainty is part of the definition,[1] and benefits and costs are shared unevenly.[8]
Internet of Things (IoT)Connect physical things to networks so software can monitor them, combine their data and sometimes act.[2, 9]Sensing, computing, communication and actuation.[9]Remote patient monitoring, equipment health monitoring, precision farming, smart homes.[10, 11, 12, 13]Communication is the one mandatory capability of a device.[2] Links include Wi-Fi, Thread, Ethernet and mobile networks.[3, 7]Monitoring without being there; better-informed maintenance (stated aims).[10, 11]Security, privacy, interoperability and reliability challenges.[2, 14]
5G and beyondDesigned for three kinds of use: enhanced mobile broadband, ultra-reliable low-latency links and massive machine-type communication.[3]Radio spectrum and network sites; the ITU’s capacity formula multiplies site density, bandwidth and spectral efficiency.[15]The ITU names industrial control, remote surgery, smart grids and transport safety as examples, not deployments.[3]It is the connectivity. Coverage varies: Ofcom reports 76–94% outdoor coverage for individual UK operators.[16]ITU requirements such as at least 100 MHz bandwidth and 4 ms radio latency are minimum evaluation targets under stated conditions, not typical experience.[15]Uneven access: 84% 5G coverage in high-income countries against 4% in low-income countries.[17]
Drone technologyUnmanned aircraft: aircraft intended to be flown without a pilot on board.[4]Aircraft, payload, communications link and operator control unit.[18]Mapping, environmental monitoring, infrastructure inspection.[18, 19]A command-and-control link between aircraft and operator.[4] We found no source tying drones to a particular network.Reaching places previously too dangerous or too expensive to monitor in detail.[18]UK rules: direct sight and a 120 m height limit in the Open category;[20] routine flights beyond sight are a 2027 target;[21] privacy duties.[22]
RoboticsMachines with a degree of autonomy that perform tasks.[5]Sensors, control software and actuators (our explanation); manipulators programmable on three or more axes in industrial robots.[23]542,076 industrial robots installed in 2024; robotically-assisted surgery; space exploration.[24, 25, 26]Varies by system. The IFR describes a trend of IT and operational technology converging.[27]Facilitating minimally invasive surgery (FDA); autonomous path planning on Mars (NASA).[25, 26]Human oversight is still needed;[25, 26] safety, cost and cybersecurity concerns.[23, 27]
AR, VR and mixed reality (XR)Add digital content to, or replace, the view of the real world; XR is the umbrella term.[6, 28]Displays, tracking and interaction methods; software interfaces such as OpenXR.[6, 29]Maintenance, higher-education research and one authorised VR therapy system.[29, 30, 31]We found no source on XR network requirements.Research and one device show uses; the sources give no general benefit figures.Fragmented and immature in places;[29] motion sickness warnings;[31] accessibility needs;[32] privacy.[33]

Our interpretation: the table’s cells are not like-for-like. Some cite standards, some regulators, some research reviews and some industry bodies, and their dates differ. A longer cell is not a stronger technology.

How can these technologies work together?

The diagram shows ways the sources suggest these technologies can relate through connectivity and data. Each card says whether the relationship is documented in the sources we checked or is only a possible combination.

Network symbol Five small circles joined by lines to a central circle, standing for devices linked through a network.

Connectivity and data

Networks carry data between devices and services. The sources name several kinds, including Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Thread and mobile networks.[3, 7]

  • IoT sensors and devices

    Documented in the sources

    Link to connectivity and data: Devices send readings over the network to services.

    The ITU says communication is the one mandatory capability of an IoT device, and it lists industrial robots among the physical things that can be connected.[2] NIST describes sensing, computing, communication and actuation working together.[9]

  • Drones

    Documented in the sources

    Link to connectivity and data: A command-and-control link joins aircraft and operator; collected data goes to people and software.

    The USGS describes drone payloads and a communications unit,[18] and uses drones for environmental and hazard data.[18] The UK CAA describes inspection of power lines and wind turbines as examples of a new policy.[19] 3GPP lists work on uncrewed aerial systems, which is standardisation, not deployment.[34, 35]

  • Robots

    Documented in the sources

    Link to connectivity and data: Sensing and software decide; people supervise; the IFR points to IT and operational technology converging.

    ISO describes a robot’s “degree of autonomy” as acting on its current state and sensing.[5] NASA’s Perseverance rover plans its own path while drivers direct the start of each drive.[26] The IFR says merging IT data processing with physical control is making robots more versatile; that is its own assessment.[27]

  • AR and other XR

    Possible combination

    Link to connectivity and data: Digital information shown in a real-world context.

    AR adds virtual objects to a real environment.[28] A review of AR in maintenance covers assembly, repair, diagnosis and training,[29] and NIST describes using sensor readings to assess equipment health.[11] The sources describe each part. We found no source documenting them combined, so this is a possibility, not a documented deployment.

Figure: possible relationships between technologies, as an illustration. This is not a universal architecture. Real systems may use some, all or none of these links, and each card’s label shows whether the sources document it.

Is 5G needed for the Internet of Things?

No. The ITU describes massive machine-type communication as one of 5G’s three scenarios,[3] but the first release of the Matter smart-home standard ran over Ethernet, Wi-Fi and Thread.[7] The two are related, not tied together.

Do drones and robots use sensors and software?

Yes, according to the sources. The USGS describes a drone system as an aircraft, payloads, a communications unit and an operator control unit,[18] and ISO describes robots as having a degree of autonomy based on sensing.[5] Whether they also use AI varies; the IFR describes AI-enabled autonomy as an increasing trend, in its own words.[27]

Our interpretation: the clearest documented links are between connectivity, sensing and data. The links to AR and XR are the least documented in the sources we found, so we present them as possibilities.

What are the benefits, challenges and trade-offs?

The table gathers what the sources say on six practical considerations. It does not weigh them against each other, because the right balance depends on the situation.

Practical considerations across the technologies
ConsiderationWhat the sources sayCaution
Cost and infrastructure5G capacity depends on spectrum and site density, and coverage differs widely between countries.[15, 17] The FAO warns that weak infrastructure, high technology costs and low digital skills risk leaving rural areas behind.[12] The IFR says humanoid robots must match traditional automation on cycle time, energy use and maintenance cost.[27]We found no independent cost figures for these technologies, so none are given.
Reliability and safetyThe FDA says its robotic surgical devices cannot operate without direct human control, and it receives injury reports, mostly about malfunctions.[25] The UK CAA treats many drone rules as legal requirements.[20] For IoT devices that affect the physical world, safety and reliability needs can clash with common cybersecurity practice.[14]Rules are national; the FDA and CAA statements are for the US and UK.
Security and privacyETSI and UK regulations set baseline security rules for consumer IoT devices.[13, 36] The ICO says organisations using drones control the personal data captured and must follow data protection law,[22] and lists immersive virtual worlds among its priority technologies.[33] The IFR links AI autonomy and IT/OT convergence to cybersecurity risks.[27]Different regulators, different jurisdictions and different dates.
Accessibility and usabilityThe W3C note says XR users should be able to use a range of input mechanisms and have alternatives to interactions that may trigger motion sickness.[32] The FDA decision summary for one VR system tells users to stop if they feel motion sickness, dizziness, headache or eye strain.[31]We found no comparable usability sources for the other five areas.
Environmental considerationsThe FAO says variable-rate technologies and drones can reduce water and pesticide use.[12] Energy efficiency is a defined ITU requirement for 5G, and 3GPP lists it as a work area.[15, 35]We found no independent source comparing the environmental footprint of these technologies, so this page makes no such comparison.
Social and employment effectsA systematic review of technology and jobs found that job-displacing effects were more than offset overall, while low-skill, production and manufacturing workers were adversely affected.[37] Another source describes automation as both replacing and complementing human work.[38] The IFR expects robots to help with labour gaps.[27] Access to 5G is very unequal between income groups.[17]The employment sources are general, one is a preprint, and the IFR is an industry body.

What questions help you reflect on a technology?

These are suggested reflection questions, not findings. We have not conducted interviews, surveys or experiments for this page. The questions are our own prompts for reading about any technology. They work for the six areas here and for others.

  1. What problem does it solve? Name the specific problem and who has it. A technology looking for a problem is a warning sign (our suggestion). See Emerging Technologies for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.
  2. What evidence supports its usefulness? Ask whether the evidence is a measurement, a standard’s target, a regulator’s authorisation or a forecast. The pages in this series label each of these differently. See Internet of Things for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.
  3. What infrastructure does it require? Consider networks, power, skills, space and rules. Coverage and permission can limit a technology that works well in a laboratory. See 5G and Beyond for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.
  4. Who benefits, and who may be disadvantaged? Look at users, workers, bystanders and people without access. See Robotics for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.
  5. What risks, costs and alternatives should be considered? Include safety, privacy, security, comfort and the cost of doing nothing or using something simpler. See Drone Technology for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.
  6. What further evidence would help inform a decision? Decide what you would need to see, from whom and over what period, before changing your mind. See AR, VR and Mixed Reality for an example of the kind of evidence to look for.

How might you use the questions?

Pick one technology from the table and write a short answer to each question, noting what evidence you have and what is missing. Then compare your answers with the references on the matching page. Where you cannot find evidence, treat that as a finding too.

Conclusion

Evaluating technologies in context matters because their value depends on the place, the rules, the infrastructure and the people involved. Several of the technologies here complement one another, for example connectivity enabling remote data collection, while others are constrained by one another’s limits, such as coverage, regulation or human oversight. The sources we checked describe possibilities, standards and stated aims far more often than measured results, so keep asking what the evidence is and who bears the costs.

The six topic pages and the hub

References

Each source is listed in the order it is first cited. The note under each one says what it supports and how it was checked. Where only an abstract or summary page was read, the note says so.

  1. What is an emerging technology?. Daniele Rotolo, Diana Hicks and Ben R. Martin. Research Policy 44(10), 1827–1843. 2015.Supports: the definition of an emerging technology, its five attributes, and the point that the attributes vary over time. Checked against the authors’ preprint on arXiv (the journal version was not accessible to us), so wording in the published article may differ.
  2. Overview of the Internet of things (Recommendation ITU-T Y.2060, renumbered Y.4000 in 2016). International Telecommunication Union. approved 15 June 2012.Supports: the definitions of IoT, “thing” and “device”; the four-layer reference model; the listed application areas; the characteristics and security requirement; and the 2012 expectation about scale. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  3. IMT Vision: framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond (Recommendation ITU-R M.2083-0). International Telecommunication Union. September 2015.Supports: the three usage scenarios (enhanced mobile broadband, ultra-reliable and low-latency communications, massive machine type communications), the examples the ITU names for them, and its 2015 expectations about connected devices. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  4. Frequently Used Terms (ICAO UAS Toolkit). International Civil Aviation Organization. no date shown on the page.Supports: ICAO’s definitions of unmanned aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft system and unmanned aircraft system. Checked against the page.
  5. Service Robots. International Federation of Robotics (IFR). page undated; checked 28 October 2026.Supports: the ISO 8373 definition of a service robot and of “degree of autonomy” as quoted by the IFR, personal and professional use, medical robots as a third category in ISO 8373:2021, and the term “robotic device”. Checked against the page. The page gives no 2025 statistics, so none are quoted.
  6. The OpenXR Specification, version 1.0.34. Khronos Group, OpenXR Working Group. version 1.0.34 (no date checked).Supports: the specification’s description of XR and of OpenXR as an interface between applications and XR runtimes. Checked against the introduction of the specification (the page is very large; only the opening section was read).
  7. Matter arrives, bringing a more interoperable, simple and secure Internet of Things to life. Connectivity Standards Alliance (press release). 4 October 2022.Supports: what Matter aims to do and the networks the first release ran over. This is the standards body’s own announcement, so it shows intent, not independent evidence of results.
  8. Steam as a general purpose technology: a growth accounting perspective. Nicholas Crafts. Economic Journal 114(495), 338–351. 2004.Supports: the figures on steam power and productivity, and the description of general purpose technologies. Checked against the full text of the LSE working paper version (Economic History Working Paper 75/03, May 2003); the journal version may differ.
  9. Networks of ‘Things’ (NIST Special Publication 800-183). Jeffrey Voas, National Institute of Standards and Technology. July 2016.Supports: IoT described as involving sensing, computing, communication and actuation, and the five building blocks (“primitives”) of a network of things. Checked against the full text.
  10. Enforcement Policy for Non-Invasive Remote Monitoring Devices Used to Support Patient Monitoring: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 19 October 2023.Supports: the description of remote patient-monitoring devices. US-specific. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  11. Measurement Science Roadmap for Prognostics and Health Management for Smart Manufacturing Systems (NIST AMS 100-2). Joan Pellegrino, Mauricio Justiniano and Anand Raghunathan (Energetics), prepared for NIST. September 2016.Supports: how sensor readings are used to monitor equipment health, and the stated aims of this kind of monitoring. These are aims and descriptions, not measured results. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  12. Digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas: briefing paper. Nikola M. Trendov, Samuel Varas and Meng Zeng, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2019.Supports: precision agriculture as an IoT application, the resource savings it says are possible, and the barriers in rural areas. A briefing paper, so it describes possibilities. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  13. Cyber Security for Consumer Internet of Things: Baseline Requirements (ETSI EN 303 645 V2.1.1). ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). June 2020.Supports: the scope and examples of consumer IoT devices, and the provisions on default passwords, vulnerability reporting and software updates. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  14. Considerations for Managing Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity and Privacy Risks (NIST IR 8228). Katie Boeckl and colleagues, National Institute of Standards and Technology. June 2019.Supports: the three considerations that make IoT risk different from conventional IT, and the three risk-mitigation goals. Checked against the full text.
  15. Minimum requirements related to technical performance for IMT-2020 radio interface(s) (Report ITU-R M.2410-0). International Telecommunication Union. November 2017.Supports: the definitions of peak data rate, user experienced data rate, latency, bandwidth, area traffic capacity, connection density, reliability and energy efficiency, and the minimum requirements with their conditions. Checked against the full text (PDF). These are requirements for evaluating candidate technologies, not measurements of real networks.
  16. Connected Nations update: Spring 2026. Ofcom (UK communications regulator). 13 May 2026 (data as of January 2026).Supports: the UK 5G coverage ranges and the description of 5G standalone as a newer form of 5G rolled out alongside non-standalone 5G. These are predicted coverage figures at Ofcom’s “High Confidence” level and will change with later updates. Checked against the page.
  17. Global number of Internet users increases, but disparities deepen key digital divides. International Telecommunication Union, press release on Facts and Figures 2025. 17 November 2025.Supports: the share of 5G in mobile broadband subscriptions and the gap in 5G coverage between high-income and low-income countries. Checked against the press release; the full report was not read.
  18. U.S. Geological Survey Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Roadmap 2014 (Open-File Report 2015-1032). Jill Cress, Michael Hutt, Jeff Sloan, Mark Bauer, Mark Feller and Susan Goplen, U.S. Geological Survey. 2015.Supports: the parts and phases of a drone system, how drones are launched and flown, and the agency’s environmental and hazard uses. A US agency report from 2015, so some details are dated, and it states goals as well as results. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  19. Infrastructure inspections with drones made easier under new rules. UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), news release. 15 October 2024.Supports: the “atypical air environments” policy and the inspection examples given. The CAA’s own announcement. Checked against the page.
  20. The Drone and Model Aircraft Code (CAP2320). UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). March 2026.Supports: the UK registration thresholds, class marks, flying rules and privacy rules quoted on this page. UK-specific; covers only the Open category sub-categories A1 and A3; rules change, so check the CAA’s current version. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  21. Future of Flight: BVLOS Roadmap (CAP3182). UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). October 2025.Supports: the objective of routine beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations by 2027 and the example operations described. These are targets and plans, not results. Checked against the full text (PDF).
  22. Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) / Drones. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), UK. no date shown; the page says it is under review because of the Data (Use and Access) Act.Supports: the ICO’s position on drones and personal data. UK-specific and under review, so check the live page. Checked against the page.
  23. Industrial Robots. International Federation of Robotics (IFR). page undated; checked 28 October 2026.Supports: the ISO 8373:2021 definition of an industrial robot as quoted by the IFR, the meaning of “reprogrammable”, “multipurpose”, “manipulator” and “axis”, and the two groups of collaborative robots. Checked against the page. The ISO standard itself was not accessed (the ISO site blocks automated access), so the wording is the IFR’s quotation.
  24. World Robotics 2025: Industrial Robots, executive summary. Christopher Müller, IFR Statistical Department (VDMA Services GmbH). 2025.Supports: industrial robot installations and operational stock for 2024 and the industry shares quoted. Checked against the executive summary only; the full report is sold by the IFR. The figures are supplier-reported statistics for industrial robots, not all robots.
  25. Computer-Assisted Surgical Systems. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). content current as of 24 September 2026, as stated on the page.Supports: the FDA’s description of robotically-assisted surgical devices, its statement that the device is not a robot because it cannot operate without direct human control, and its statements on benefits and safety reports. US regulator only. Checked against the page.
  26. Perseverance’s Sol 200 Auto-Nav Drive. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 19 October 2021 (drive on 12 September 2021).Supports: how the rover’s Auto-Nav splits work between human drivers and the rover. The page gives two slightly different distances for the drive, so no distance is quoted here. Checked against the page.
  27. Top 5 Global Robotics Trends 2026. International Federation of Robotics (IFR), press release. 8 January 2026.Supports: the IFR’s own assessment of trends in AI and autonomy, humanoids, safety and security, and labour gaps. The IFR is an industry body, so these are its views and expectations, not independent findings. Checked against the page.
  28. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329. 1994.Supports: the “virtuality continuum”, and the original definitions of mixed reality, augmented reality and augmented virtuality. Checked against the full text (PDF) of a copy hosted by a university course site. It concerns visual displays only and dates from 1994, so modern products are not described.
  29. A systematic review of augmented reality applications in maintenance. Riccardo Palmarini, John Ahmet Erkoyuncu, Rajkumar Roy and Hosein Torabmostaedi, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 49, 215–228. 2018 (accepted manuscript).Supports: the review’s findings on AR in industrial maintenance (30 studies, 1997–2017), the display, tracking and interaction categories, and its conclusion about fragmentation and limited maturity. Checked against the full text of the accepted manuscript. The data are up to 2017, so hardware has moved on since.
  30. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Jaziar Radianti, Tim A. Majchrzak, Jennifer Fromm and Isabell Wohlgenannt, Computers & Education 147, article 103778. 2020.Supports: the review’s findings that learning theories were seldom considered and that evaluations focused on usability rather than learning outcomes. Checked against the abstract only (retrieved through a scholarly metadata service); the full text could not be downloaded by our tools.
  31. De Novo Classification Request for EaseVRx, decision summary (DEN210014). U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). request received 31 March 2021; the decision date is not legible in the copy we read.Supports: the indication for this one prescription virtual reality system, its limitations and warnings, and the adverse-event figures from its clinical study. The copy is a scanned PDF with some unreadable text. The figures apply to this device and study, not to VR in general. US regulator only.
  32. XR Accessibility User Requirements (Working Group Note). W3C Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group. 25 August 2021.Supports: the W3C’s description of XR, VR and AR/MR and the accessibility considerations quoted. The note says it is not a collection of baseline requirements. Checked against the page.
  33. Tech Horizons report 2024. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), UK. no date shown on the page (second edition).Supports: the ICO’s inclusion of “immersive virtual worlds” among eight priority technologies and its general point that immersive technologies can collect novel types of intimate information. The page does not use the term XR and gives no detailed privacy analysis, so this is a pointer, not guidance. Checked against the page.
  34. Release 17 (3GPP specifications and technologies). 3GPP. functional freeze March 2022, as stated on the page.Supports: the Release 17 completion and its listed work areas (for example reduced-capability devices, non-terrestrial networks, non-public networks, uncrewed aerial systems). Checked against the page.
  35. Release 18 (3GPP specifications and technologies). 3GPP. page checked 28 October 2026.Supports: Release 18 as the start of 5G-Advanced and its main themes. The page’s freeze dates are in an image that could not be read, so no freeze dates are quoted. Checked against the page.
  36. Regulations: consumer connectable product security. GOV.UK (UK Government guidance). published 8 January 2024, last updated 17 March 2025.Supports: the UK requirements, the 29 April 2024 start date, who must comply, and the exclusions. UK-specific; rules differ elsewhere and may change. Checked against the guidance page.
  37. Technology and jobs: A systematic literature review. Kerstin Hötte, Melline Somers and Angelos Theodorakopoulos. submitted 4 April 2022 (arXiv preprint).Supports: the authors’ conclusion that, across the studies they reviewed, job-displacing effects of technology were more than offset by mechanisms that create or restore labour, while low-skill, production and manufacturing workers were adversely affected. A preprint (not peer-reviewed in the version we saw), about technology in general, with robots as one category. Checked against the abstract page only.
  38. Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. David H. Autor. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3), 3–30. 2015.Supports: how automation both replaces and complements human work, and wage polarisation. Checked against the publisher’s abstract page; the full article was not read.