Yes, they'll break a software license and use garbage that uses garbage that uses garbage. Way to draw the line.
Your comment sounds like a criticism of the project in general rather than the pointlessness of adding a clause to the license. Personally, I think this is pretty novel, better than the 100's of stable-diffusion-as-a-service things that have popped up lately.
> while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so
I mean, everyone builds on top of things they couldn't recreate. If you're a software developer, chances are you couldn't recreate your favorite languages runtime/compiler/whatever, you couldn't recreate your OS, you couldn't recreate the hardware that's running your software. I don't get this criticism at all.
FWIW this isn't my problem with this project. It's that the writer doesn't know what they're doing and represents a new type of post-code/post-crypto monkey that just links together APIs in clever ways and tries to charge maximum $ for it by selling it to people (monkeys?) who think it's magic.
People like this will make a lot of money, and eventually do something that injures you and your family personally. So it's best to attack them and slander them early and often.