There isn't really any piece of software that can do a better job of teaching you than a human (unless you pick a really incompetent human). That's for a number of reasons. The task of hearing and assessing what we hear is an incredibly detailed cognitive accomplishment; training an algorithm to recognize "good tone" would be an incredible task. And then, being able to intuitively diagnose poor tone is even harder. Do you need more air? different posture? different mouth shape? lower your tongue? lift your chin? Experienced teachers spot all the usual culprits in an instant, either visually or in nuances of timbre, but to build an AI to perform similarly would approach the Singularity. And finally, knowing how to communicate instruction requires human social intelligence—ideally, a good teacher even realizes that they must convey the same information in different ways to "get through" to different students and "make it click."
Of course, most resources that exist right now don't make any attempt to leverage AI in this kind of interactive way (at most, perhaps a bit of pitch recognition to see if you're singing the right notes). That means that you can learn from them the same way you learn from a book: you go in search of your own information, harvest it yourself, and apply it to yourself as best you can. This highlights the main difference between self-teaching and having a teacher: the teacher can correct what you don't know you're doing wrong. And chances are, that's what matters. Sometimes, after a student plays a piece, I ask them what they think they need to focus on. They're usually thinking most about something much less important than what are in fact the biggest, glaring, emergency issues—if they were aware of them, they wouldn't be problems.
Try not to get frustrated with your progress. In fact, try not to set any expectations on it at all. You're learning at the speed that your body and your brain allow you to; getting dissatisfied with that is unrewarding.