No, but it would be cool if I did. I tried studying the language before, but the many cascading tables of tense, person, part of speech, gender, plurality, conjugations and declensions, or whatever were way too much for me to try to memorize. I thought about learning Latin Sine Flexione instead, but it felt too much like playing in the special Olympics. Some Latin phrases I know are
E pluribus unum - Out of many, one
Ex contradictione quodlibet - From a contradiction, anything follows
Ex post facto - I don't remember - after the fact?
De facto - in reality as opposed to technically, or something like that
Ad hoc - Made up for the situation
A priori - like a prior or first principle, an idea that comes first
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - After, therefore because of - the fallacy that B happened after A therefore A caused B
Pro bono - for free, I think? regarding legal services
Anno domini - the year of our Lord
Ad hominem - to the person - the fallacy of attacking the person's character rather than the idea
Ad infinitum - and so on and so on infinitely
Et cetera - and others
Et alia - and others
Argumentum ad absurdum - to prove an idea wrong by showing that it leads to an absurdity
Quand est providi - QED - thus it is proven
Salve - hello, goodbye
I know more but I can't think of them atm.

It's really neat, it's been like a year since ChatGPT and GPT-4 were released, and I'm still amazed every time I see one or the other in action.

I'm skeptical that true AGI is actually achievable, though, since I think that would require actual consciousness, and AI can't be conscious since consciousness/life is not an algorithm, it's cosmic and ineffable.

So I also think it's ridiculous whenever people bring up possible ethical concerns about the use of AI. Though we should definitely consider the ethics of possible robotics that make use of actual biological neural networks.

Why can biological neural networks harbor experience while computer algorithms can't? I've written some about that here: https://philosophy.inhahe.com/2019/09/13/on-the-possibility-of-artificial-general-intelligence/ Basically, I don't think either can actually be the seat of consciousness, but biology can be a vessel for life/consciousness, while computer algorithms can't for reasons I explain in the essay. It's an interesting question what types of systems other than biology or biological neural networks can also be a vessel for life/consciousness.

Another thought I have about AI is that it's going to cost a lot of people their jobs. Ideally, automating labor would be a good thing, because that's more product society gets for less overall labor, but unfortunately the system more or less requires that you work in order to receive any goods or services that you need to live, so in practice it's very problematic. It's more or less the same problem we have with cheap overseas labor.

Another problem with the proliferation of AI is the low quality of its output, in the senses that (a) it lacks the actual touch of life, which makes it deleterious for very subtle reasons, and (b) it tends to hallucinate in very convincing ways, so people get misinformed, and we don't even always know when we're reading the products of AI.

I also suspect that in some mystical/metaphysical way, simulating intelligence on a non-living machine is actually diabolical and deadly in the bigger scheme of things.