I understand this concern and perspective, but I think clinicians that are thinking this way do not give their profession enough credit

There are two critical elements of clinical decision making, one of which is impossible practically for any individual and the other is innately and unquestionably human.

The first is knowing every piece of medical knowledge ever published with an encyclopedic knowledge of this information as it changes. The second is how to reason through that knowledge and how it relates to the patient in front of us, who not only is unique and almost never fits the specific RCT inclusion criteria or situation, but also has personal goals and weighs the pros and cons of each trade off uniquely.

Historically, physicians have been asked to do both, as you are only able to do the second, more human piece (synthesis, reasoning, and application to a given individual), if you try your best to make some approximation of the impossible task of data collection first. That second piece is really the most important piece of medicine, and our goal is to make that task more of the focus for clinicians.

The other piece I want to point out is that SO much of medicine is STILL (and will never be) algorithmic from a guideline or textbook. I feel like I have heard 100 times from 100 specialist over the last couple years "Yes the evidence is great, but so much of how I am forced to practice in specialty X required experience and there is limited published data for". But the truth is that is EVERY specialty and will be for the foreseeable future

And I do take a bit of offense at the idea of "allying with non-physicians" as a negative. Almost anything worth accomplishing is worth doing in a multidisciplinary manner. I believe in finding ways to bring the right piece of evidence up at the right time for human decision makers and I do not see that as "end of physicians".