[flagged]
Public libraries, in this instance, is curated data from all the internet, obtained through not legal means (I don't have a problem with this other than lack of attribution, being copy-left). Just to be clear.
But in answer to your incredibly leading and inaccurate framing... they are required (by their job title) to teach to those who who show up in the classroom, it's not their place to discriminate against anyone/thing (even those like itself (other robots)) that also show up in the classroom.
But you can't teach at a university using only knowledge learned from the library. you need a degree. You are free to teach at the park, where anyone can hear you. public in -> public out.
Teaching isn't a race to the bottom. You don't undercut teaching by giving more lessons, just like you don't slight the hospital by performing CPR.
A tree falling and killing someone isn’t tried for manslaughter.
So I don’t care about a hypothetical teacher.
I'm confused now; isn't the LLM that trains on that professor's lectures, videos and textbooks undercutting him?
Where were you going with this?
The further you try to constrain this topic into this illformed analogy the weirder it becomes. If we start off with a better analogy...
if the professor took all human knowledge, much of which was explicitly not free, and used it to make a for-profit knowledge machine that extrudes unreliable summaries of that knowledge, then yes, being obligated to teach for free would be a fitting punishment.
The professor is free to lift all the facts and formula they want. They just need to rephrase explanations. Which is pretty much what an LLM is going to do.
2) Any professor who tried to ban students from posting lecture notes online would be immediately mocked.