$R^2$ is a function of $RSS = \sum (y_i - \hat y_i)^2$.
$$
R^2 =
1-
\dfrac{
RSS
}
{
\sum (y_i - \bar y)^2
}
$$
What this equation means is that $R^2$ compares the model quality to always predicting the observed mean of $y$, regardless of your predictor variables.
Consequently, $R^2$ and $RSS$ provide the same information when it comes to model comparisons. If you compare two models of the same $y$, the one with lower $RSS$ has higher $R^2$, and this fact does not depend on model linearity.
I dislike $R^2$ for two reasons, both of which I have mentioned on here in the past, perhaps better than I describe here.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/539785/247274
- When the model is nonlinear, and even sometimes when it is linear, $R^2$ loses its interpretation from OLS of describing the proportion of explained variance.
Nonlinear regression SSE Loss
Why does regularization wreck orthogonality of predictions and residuals in linear regression?
- Even if we can interpret $R^2$ as the proportion of variance explained, people seem to want to think in terms of grades in school, where $R^2=0.9$ means an $\text{A}$-grade on our model, while $R^2=0.5$ means and $\text{F}$-grade on our model. Depending on the problem, $R^2=0.5$ might be fantastic performance that we would be very happy to achieve, while $R^2=0.9$ could be rather pedestrian performance.
Why getting very high values for MSE/MAE/MAPE when R2 score is very good