He wants to keep control that his contributions are used in the same spirit.

Why he's dragging his dispute with SO to us is beyond me.

I suppose that SO has a disclaimer that is taking the rights of the authors...°

AFAIK, PM restricts rights only in terms of deletions, because otherwise they would render whole threads useless.

°) nope it's creative commons and mentions attribution explicitly.

https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing

If the AI is not attributing to his input he's free to sue SO

I'm not so sure: " and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content..."

The quote is still relevant, as it shows that stevieb has a *cough* non-standard *cough* concept of what constitutes "attribution". With a little more context, his quote was:

I have not been notified nor paid for my small contributions. Therefore I have not been attributed to.

If he said that he wants attribution and if not being paid means (to him) that he has not been attributed to, then he did say that he wants to be paid.