Sorry to nitpick, but is this true? We are doing optimization here and a global minimum is just a better solution than a non-global minimum. Is there a connection to generalisation here?
But - there are some guarantees. Under PAC-Learning assumptions we can place an upper bound on the expected error as a function of the number of training examples and the size of the hypothesis space (the set of possible models). The maths is in a paper called Occam's Razor: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002001...
Unfortunately, PAC-Learning presupposes that the sampling distribution is the same as the real distribution, i.e. what I said above we can't know for sure.
In any case, I think most people would agree that a model that can reach the global minimum of training error on a large dataset has better chance to reach the global minimum of generalisation error (i.e. in the real world) than a model that gets stuck in local minima on the training data. Modulo assumptions.
In a motion planning or controls context, a local minima can often mean a configuration or path that is infeasible due to collision or wildly inefficient.
If the error function has a convex shape we're basically guaranteed to find its global minimum. In non-convex optimisation, we're guaranteed to get stuck to local minima.
(Ok, the above is a bit tongue in cheek, there's no _guarantee_ of getting stuck to local minima, but it's very likely).