Yes, but you can easily make noncommercial use of an art generator.
Obviously, you can't host a commercial art generation service with a noncommercial-use license, and (insofar as art produced by a generator is a derivative work of the model weights, which is a controversial and untested legal theory) you can’t make commercial art with a noncommercial license, but not all art is commercial.
"Noncommercial art" is not a thing in the eyes of the law. Even if you don't intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial. That's why CC-BY-NC has to have a special "filesharing is non-commercial" statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is.
You're probably thinking of "not charging a fee to use", which is a subset of all the ways you can monetize a creative work. You can still make money off of AudioCraft by just hosting it with banner ads next to the output. Even a "no monetization" clause[0] would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only", because it'd at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.
[0] Which already precludes the use of AudioCraft music on YouTube since you can't do unmonetized uploads anymore
> “Noncommercial art” is not a thing in the eyes of the law
The definition of “NonCommercial”, the oddly capitalized term of art in the license, is not a matter of general law, it is a matter of the license, which defines it as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.”
> Even if you don’t intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial.
Even if you do make money, if the use is “not primarily intended” for that purpose, it is "NonCommercial" in the terms of the license.
> That’s why CC-BY-NC has to have a special “filesharing is non-commercial” statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is.
It has the filesharing term in it because it permits that particular exchange-of-value as a primary purpose.
> Even a “no monetization” clause would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only"
How would a clause that prohibits monetization entirely be less onerous than one which prohibits it only as the primary intent of use?
> it’d at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.
It is legal to use it for that purpose (in a for-profit enterprise, I suppose, one might make an argument that any activity was ultimately primarily directed at “commercial advantage”, but in a government or many nonprofit environments, that wouldn’t be the case.)
In their example audio clips they have a "perfect for the beach" audio track. With your understanding of the NC license, would a resort or private beach club be able to play a similar generated music track at their poolside bar or something along those lines? Their primary intention of the bar isn't to play the music, its just an additional ambiance thing; they're trying to sell drinks and have guests pay membership fees, people aren't really coming because of the background music.
> With your understanding of the NC license, would a resort or private beach club be able to play a similar generated music track at their poolside bar or something along those lines?
A resort, probably not, ambiance is, at least arguably, a marketable commercial advantage; a private club in the “mutual benefit organization” sense (rather than a “business selling memberships”, which is just like a resort), probably, because their interest, even indirectly, isn’t making money.
