I view the time of hand-crafting good code a better investment than spending the same time (and sometimes more) carefully eye-balling tool output that is almost guaranteed to contain subtle mistakes and correct them.
I don't have this problem at all, and yet I use Copilot daily since it was closed beta. The output I get is very helpful, indeed sometimes wrong but it's very much outweighed by the successes. I sometimes turn it off to remember how it used to be, and it's just terrible. It actually makes me and my team 10x devs.
The point is that the senior professionals who benefited from it created so much additional productivity, it doesn't matter that there is someone who can't use it well - that doesn't make AI useless or not worth it.
One anecdotal evidence does not nullify the other, and vice versa. You have your experience, I have mine. I even qualified my statements -- one of the languages I use is not very popular and thus statistical models like the LLMs obviously don't do well with it -- but you are happy to ignore that and keep arguing that your experience is the prevailing phenomena, which I'll always disagree with.
I have only seen it introduce friction and keep seniors busy code-reviewing the subtle mistakes that the so-called "AI" does.