Better at issuing haphazardly modified boilerplate that already exists... the real costs of writing code are about carefully choosing how pieces will fit together and deciding on minutae with that in mind.
Copilot is the antithesis of designing good software.
Both parts matter. Making humans faster at writing the well isolated implementations means more time for the important stuff. Tons of productivity features could be foolishly dismissed with "well, the actually important bit is design so this is worthless".
What it means that it can't code well, so there's nothing to be excited about. That we cannot predict the future is of course true but really has no bearing on what you're saying, except to lend credence to the idea that it will be able to some day (i.e. that you can predict the future). Which is in essence the opposite of what "we cannot predict the future" should mean. That makes the entire argument kind of disingenuous.
We can't know the future, but we guess based on past trends. Technology has been pretty good at replacing humans in the past, and a lot of times we've said "a machine can't do this" and been wrong. We'll have to see, but I think it's silly to say it's not working now so it never will.
We've heard breathless claims that AI will replace people coding ever since the advent of AI in some form or another. If we truly were going on past trends, we would conclude it is not very useful and will probably stay that way.
Copilot is the antithesis of designing good software.