I'd argue the opposite: because they are focusing on knowledge acquisition they are trying to separate the medium (the books) from the objective.

40 years ago books were the only way to obtain knowledge. Nowadays even those who come for the books do so with a laptop for taking notes. If I were a librarian, it would be naive of me not to ask the question "if all the books are online, then why are we here?"

Anecdotally, on the topic of "knowledge acquisition", I used to run a drawing group. Finding a place to do so was a major problem because nobody wanted to invite strangers home and not everybody could afford the ~$20 it would take to stay at a cafe for long. A library with a meeting room would have been our dream solution and perhaps would have kept the group from dissolving.

Libraries have been renting non-books for a long time. Different communities have different needs. It's not a big deal. Some libraries in the Los Angeles area lend sewing machines, bike tools, and other useful stuff. The main branch library has 3d printers and other tech stuff ordinary folks can't afford. And of course, they have various workshops on numerous topics for adults and children.

Given all the stuff I've taken advantage of, if the libraries here were only for borrowing books, they would seem kind of useless. And this is from someone who has the max 30 books checked out right now.

It’s easier to take time to pick up a book and learn something if your life is going smoothly in other areas. If all your clothes need mending it can make a barrier of embarrassment to go to a public place like a library. With the hollowing out of the middle class, people live in smaller housing and move more, lose their inter generational resources. If there’s a trusted social institution that is knowen for borrow and lending, and people have a need to borrow tools for their everyday life it seems not such a deviation from the purpose of libraries

Libraries might not be a business but they still have to compete for funding. If those funding them think they are no longer relevant, the alternative is to slowly lose funding and die. People don't care about books anymore, so if the library must dangle an enticement to keep people engaged enough to retain the instilled indeed that knowledge should be freely available instead of siloed (and the other benefits of libraries), so be it.

Adapt or die is the way of life.

Andrew Carnegie funded 2,500+ public libraries and many were built with lecture halls, auditoriums, and meeting rooms on purpose. The public library was a civic institution from day one.

As others have said, reference is something we can do easily on the internet. But I would add that sitting down and studying a text with others is something best done in person. It’s a nice social experience and better achieves the goal (also gets lazy nerds like me out of the house).