In the original DQN paper, the $\ell_2$ loss is taken over the distance between our network output, $\hat{q}(s_j,a_j,w)$ and the labels $y_j=r_j+\gamma \cdot \max\limits_{a'} \hat{q}(s_{j+1},a',w^-)$, where $\hat{q}(s_{j+1},a',w^-)$ is our network with static weights $w^-$, that are updated to be $w^-=w$ every $C$ steps.
This is troubling to me, as $y_j$ aren't really "true" labels as we know from supervised learning, so why should I even think that this loss updates the weights such that the output policy is something meaningful?
It seems as if my network could output some arbitrary $\hat{q}$ and with respect to this $\hat{q}$, I will try to minimize a loss, But when $\hat{q}$ isn't "optimal" per se, It is not clear that we can converge to an optimal policy.