One way to think about this might be to cast it in the language of conditional probability. Perhaps we are modeling our agent as it makes choices between two world states, A and B, based on their predicted levels of X and Y. If P(A) is the probability that the agent chooses state A, and P(A|X) and P(A|Y) are the probabilities of choosing A given knowledge of predictions about the level of X and Y respectively in state A vs. state B, then it seems obvious to me that "cares about X only because it leads to Y" can be expressed as P(A|XY) = P(A|Y). Once we know its predictions about Y, X tells us nothing more about its likelihood of choosing state A. Likewise, "cares about Y only because it leads to X" could be expressed as P(A|XY) = P(A|X). In the statement "the agent cares about X only because it leads to Y, and it cares about Y only because it leads to X," it seems like it's saying that P(A|XY) = P(A|Y) ∧ P(A|XY) = P(A|X), which implies that P(A|Y) = P(A|X) -- there is perfect mutual information shared between X and Y about P(A).

However, I don't think that this quite captures the spirit of the question, since the idea that the agent "cares about X and Y" isn't the same thing as X and Y being predictive of which state the agent will choose. It seems like what's wanted is a formal way to say "the only things that 'matter' in this world are X and Y," which is not the same thing as saying "X and Y are the only dimensions on which world states are mapped." We could imagine a function that takes the level of X and Y in two world states, A and B, and returns a preference order {A > B, B > A, A = B, incomparable}. But who's to say this function isn't just capturing an empirical regularity, rather than expressing some fundamental truth about why X and Y control the agent's preference for A or B? However, I think that's an issue even in the absence of any sort of circular reasoning.

A machine learning model's training process is effectively just a way to generate a function that consistently maps an input vector to an output that's close to a zero output from the loss function. The model doesn't "really" value reward or avoidance of loss any more than our brains "really" value dopamine, and as far as I know, nobody has a mathematical definition of what it means to "really" value something, as opposed to behaving in a way that consistently tends to optimize for a target. From that point of view, maybe saying that P(A|Y) = P(A) really is the best we can do to mathematically express "he only cares about Y" and P(A|X) = P(A|Y) is the best way to express "he only cares about Y to get X and only cares about X to get Y."

That's a valid reaction. However, my take is that removal of the quotes is aesthetically useful precisely because it complicates our ability to parse the words as dialog and muddles that sort of naive clarity. Spoken words are sounds, sounds are part of the environment, and it is both a choice and an effort to parse those sounds as dialog.

Most authors opt to do this work for the reader through punctuation, which also enforces interpreting these passages as dialog first and sounds second, if at all. McCarthy makes it easier to interpret spoken words as sounds that are part of the environment. If your aim as a reader is to parse dialog, it will be harder to do this in a McCarthy novel. If your aim is instead to have an aesthetic experience of spoken words as sensation interlaced with other impressions of the environment, then McCarthy's method of punctuation makes this simpler (and even plants the suggestion that this might be something you as a reader might want to do, if you hadn't considered the possibility before).

I respectfully disagree. As with the minor edit on the Boccaccio quote in another of my comments here, eliminating quotes fundamentally changes the way we interpret the scene.

With quotes (and especially with the way dialog is typically paragraphed), human speech is implicitly shown to be so drastically separate from the sensory component of the scene that it requires completely different formatting from the rest of the text.

By eliminating quotes and dialog paragraphing, human speech becomes just another element in the scene being depicted, not separate or any more or less important than the action of screwing down the plastic cap or the functional importance of the oil in the lamp. 

The absence of quotes only makes it harder to read if you, the reader, resist this aesthetic and try to force the dialog to be of greater importance than McCarthy is allowing it to be in his novel.

He screwed down the plastic cap and wiped the bottle off with a rag and hefted it in his hand. Oil for their little slutlamp to light the long gray dusks, the long gray dawns.

"You can read me a story," the boy said. "Cant you, Papa?"

"Yes," he said. "I can."

See how the social interaction between Papa and the boy is now positioned as separate from and more important than Papa's work on the lamp?

He screwed down the plastic cap and wiped the bottle off with a rag and hefted it in his hand. Oil for their little slutlamp to light the long gray dusks, the long gray dawns. "You can read me a story," the boy said. "Cant you, Papa?" "Yes," he said. "I can."

Even if you just add quotation marks, the marks call special and separate attention to the dialog, placing it as a separate component of the paragraph.

Semicolons are unnecessary? That doesn’t go far enough. Cormac McCarthy got rid of quotation marks, most commas, and almost exterminated the colon.

Interestingly, breaking up long sentences into shorter ones by replacing a transitional word with a period does not quite capture the same nuance as the original. Here's a translation of Boccaccio, and a version where I add a period in the middle.

Wherefore, as it falls to me to lead the way in this your enterprise of storytelling, I intend to begin with one of His wondrous works, that, by hearing thereof, our hopes in Him, in whom is no change, may be established, and His name be by us forever lauded.

Wherefore, as it falls to me to lead the way in this your enterprise of storytelling, I intend to begin with one of His wondrous works. By hearing thereof, our hopes in Him, in whom is no change, may be established, and His name be by us forever lauded.

By replacing ", that," with a period, my revision completely changes our relationship with the narrator. In the original translation, the narrator is both announcing his goal and describing what he plans to do to achieve it.

In the revised version, he's describing his plan of action and a potential effect of that plan. We might assume that he's choosing that plan in order to bring about that effect, but it's no longer explicit in the text. Each sentence stands on its own. It's up to the reader to perceive the narrator's intention.

I wonder if inserting periods systematically tends to disrupt explicit links between intention and action. If so, perhaps the shortening of sentences reflects the anomie of the modern era, the gradual decay of an explicit moral framework in the stories we tell.

Many short sentences can add up to a very long text. The cost of paper, ink, typesetting and distribution would incentivize using fewer letters, but not shorter sentences.

“I'm skeptical of this one because female partners are typically notoriously high maintenance in money, attention, and emotional labor.”

Some people enjoy attending to their partner and find meaning in emotional labor. Housing’s a lot more expensive than gifts and dates. My partner and I go 50/50 on expenses and chores. Some people like having long-term relationships with emotional depth. You might want to try exploring out of your bubble, especially if you life in SF, and see what some normal people (ie non-rationalists) in long term relationships have to say about it.

I cancelled my OpenAI subscription due to this article and I let them know that's the reason why in their cancellation survey.

Unfortunately the level of physical restraint I’d need to stop biting is too costly to be worth it to me.

It actually did contain capsaicin IIRC. Sort of a bitter spicy mix. The other issue is it gets on things you touch, including food if you’re preparing or eating it by hand.