+1 on this comment. We had issues with poorly written selenium tests and after rewriting new tests with cypress and better test practices, the e2e test are reliable enough to be used as canary testing in new environments without false positive flaking. It ultimately comes down to how much you're willing to invest in writing good tests.

If you're suffering from seriously flakey e2e tests results, more often than not it's from either outdated tech, poor testing practices, and not enabling a selective retry on failures.

You hit the nail on the head, using your own words.

> selective retry on failures

This is why your test suite passes, not because of an avoidance of outdated tech or poor practices. You rerun your flaky tests until they pass. That’s bad engineering, and the definition of non-determinism.

You also have the issue of performance. If you have a NN churning predicting every frame what your remote player would do, it would add even more load to that 16ms loop of calculating and rendering everything else. At best maybe some very basic ML might help, but the "assume no input changed" seems to be best guess from the sounds of empirical testing in the article.