That sounds like a very optimistic/naive view on what LLMs and "the market" can achieve. First, the models are limited in their skills: they're as wide as a sea, and as shallow as a puddle. There's no way it can coach you to whatever goal (aside: who picks that goal? Is it a good goal to begin with?) since there's no training data for that. The model will just rehash something that vaguely looks like a response to your data, and after a while will end up in a steady state, unless you push it out of there.
Second, "the market" has never shown any tendency towards rewarding such a thing. The LLMs' development is driven by bonuses and stock prices, which is driven by how well the company can project FOMO and get people addicted to their products. This may well be a local optimum, but it will stay there, because the path towards your goal (which may not be a global optimum either) goes through loss, and that is very much against the culture of VCs and C suite.
Second, "the market" has never shown any tendency towards rewarding such a thing. The LLMs' development is driven by bonuses and stock prices, which is driven by how well the company can project FOMO and get people addicted to their products. This may well be a local optimum, but it will stay there, because the path towards your goal (which may not be a global optimum either) goes through loss, and that is very much against the culture of VCs and C suite.