I'm not sure what you mean as evidence-free here.

Debates for public regulation should not be started by evidence-backed conclusions, but rather they are what pushes research and discussion in the first place.

Perhaps the conclussion to AI's impact on mental health is "hey, multiple high quality studies show that the impact is actually positive, let's allow it and in fact consider it as a potential treatment path". That's perfectly fine.

What is not fine is not considering the topic at all until it's too late for preventive action. We don't need to wait for a building burning before we consider whether we need fire extinguishers there.

My list is not made of complains at all, it's just a few of the ways in which we suspect AI can be disruptive, which are then probably worth examining.