This month, for the third time, I evaluated copilot. It has vastly improved. So far that this time I'll probably pay for it.
I think it's biggest benefit isn't for me, though. Copilot is great at churning out predictable or repetitive stuff, much less in writing a abstractions over or around that repetitive or predictable stuff. E.g. it's great at writing yet another CreditcardPayment ActiveRecord model for Rails. But less so for an obscure business domain model used outside of a framework. And great at writing fifteen getters and setters, less for an abstract base class, DSL or macro that introduces all these getters and setters for me.
It's also bad at certain rewrites. A codebase was slowly rewritten from OldStyle (and old libs) to NewStyle. It stubbornly kept suggesting OldStyle snippets.
And last, I find Copilot has a far higher ROI in some languages and frameworks than others. E.g. dynamic languages (like Ruby) have very poor LSP and intellisense support compared to typed and static (like Rust). So the added benefit differs a lot based on where it's used, is my experience.
I guess esp. the latter is why I too am underwhelmed. But also why I'll keep using it, this time, for when I do the inevitable Rails, JavaScript or Panda's gigs. But less so for my weird eventsourced, hexagonal, Rust project.