The AI encyclical doesn't yet have a Latin translation, because even though the Latin version is "official", it takes six to twelve months longer to prepare than all the others, an issue exacerbated by the use of terms that don't already have established neolatin translations. Since the timing is important and they don't want to rush the Latinists, they seem to have decided a few years back to move the Latin versions "off the critical path", even though this adds a layer of absurdity to the whole business.
Since the encyclicals are still issued simultaneously in like ten other languages, this leaves it uncertain which version should be considered official -- it's likely that it was first written in Italian or perhaps English, then translated, but when the Latin version finally comes out like a year from now, it will retroactively be considered the official copy, and all the others will be considered vernacular translations of it. Which is already a funny story about where pragmatism meets tradition, but in reading about this I found some commentary from someone formerly of the Vatican's Latin office, who mentioned something even better: that one benefit of this process was that the Vatican got to see the public discourse about the document while translating it, which gave them a chance to tailor it to any controversies or confusion that might arise, so that, for instance, if there were competing readings of a passage based on subtle differences between translations, they could pick which one to favour after the fact. This means that this is sort of like Steam Early Access for papal encyclicals.
Maybe they should give the translators access to Claude in order to speed up the process a bit.
