Question: How do you deal with people like me who disagree?

I don't see what you could disagree with. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism is not asking you to believe in anything that should be enforced (such as private property rights).
If you go on a rampage, you will be dealt with, as in pretty much any society. Even today, if you go to the main square and start attacking people, I'm fairly sure people would soon overwhelm and incapacitate you (unless of course everyone just stands around waiting for the almighty state to fix it for them, which is sadly not a completely unrealistic scenario these days).
Other than that, people can and will disassociate from those that are 'unpleasant'. Not only would you find yourself lonely, but there are also a lot of human goals that simply can not be achieved alone without association and cooperation, so you would be missing out on all that.
As for your very survival: you wouldn't need to steal food for example. You are free to take it. But what do you do once you have taken it? I mean, you can not possibly spend a lifetime not producing anything useful. And what if you try to take food but there is none? You will have to produce some, if not for society, then simply for your own survival.
And that's exactly the whole point: take what you need, produce to your abilities.

What if I am the only person that knows how to make a certain thing and the one with the abilities and I'd rather do something else?

Then you would certainly want to share your knowledge, teach it to others, if not for the good of society then simply for the respect and appreciation of others. Would you rather go fishing and die with your unique knowledge? You're free to do so.

Utopian Dreams they presume upon the notion that human nature does not exist as it currently does.

I think most of what you consider human nature develops when people are introduced to a society with mistguided values, such as private property, money, profit, social hierarchies.
I believe fundamental human nature to be curious (exploration, technology, sciences) and social (seek respect and appreciation of others, avoid harming fellow humans) above all. That is, once the basic physiological needs are met. But there are enough resources (especially with today's knowledge and technology) to satisfy everyone's basic needs for survival.
Having written this all out, now I realize this is kind of in line with the maslow pyramid, which further reinforces my assumptions.

I do believe such a goal may be achievable at some point, but again this illustrates why I say Ancap could exist before Ancom

So you believe ancap to be a gateway to ancom? What are your true ideals then? ;)

If I need a specific type of chip to make and invention, who is going to make it? How do I requisition this chip so I can take it from the public.

You interact with others and form associations. It's not like they're busy mass producing those chips for profit. You simply convince them that it's worth producing the resources needed for your goal, and they will be likely happy to assist you. You can then acquire the resources together and do the research together. You exchange knowledge and satisfy your human needs of both curiousity and socialization in the process. And as an added bonus, you might even end up producing something ground-breaking for society!
And that's also a prime example of how 'producing to your abilities' doesn't necessarily have to feel like 'work' as we know it today, and doesn't necessarily have to be separate from fun/leisure activites.

I'm not going to go making things to improve the surroundings around me to only have anyone that so desires come along and drag them off somewhere else.

Again, you communicate and associate with others. You carved something pretty? Others like it too and they wish to enjoy the scenery? Why not put it somewhere more prominent, so it's there for anyone to admire instead of keeping it in your garden. Wouldn't that make you feel better? People admiring your creation in masses? And people who share your interests in carvings would simply move closer to you. Then in the extreme case, the whole area could be sorrounded by carvings and populated by fellow carvers and admirers.

If there are tons of potatoes already and you chose that to do then you'd better know some other way to compete either by lesser labor, higher quality, better service/delivery, etc.

But if you know a better way, wouldn't it be better to share it with everyone? Collectively, everyone would have to spend less time producing potatoes then. Again, cooperation over competition. Do you also support intellectual property rights? In an anarcho-communist society, anyone improving the efficiency of anything overall benefits everyone else. But the individual who causes the improvement, gets the additional benefit of respect, appreciation and the internal sense of achievement, having made a mark on the world.

Even today, I would like to think not all eg. doctors or scientists are in the business primarily/purely for money. There is indeed work that most people don't enjoy but must be done. But if noone is doing it x hours a day as wage-labor, but instead people take turns as needed, bring and share their ideas on how to make it more efficient or automate it, and try to make it more fun, no work is so terrible. For example, noone I know particularly enjoys hauling shit at construction sites. Yet, buildings are needed. But if everyone instead of wasting their energy at the gym for hours each week helped out at a construction site to stay fit and socialize, and they all brought their ideas on how to make it more efficient, the very same work would feel a lot different than today.

With regards to having anarcho-communism inside anarcho-capitalism: the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree that you're in fact right, it would be possible.

Each side of this discussion primarily has their preferred stance on how property is handled. That is primarily the dividing line.

I think it goes deeper than that. My the most profound problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it tries to abstract over fundamental human values in order to provide a more logical, scientifically reasonable incentive system (money and private property) to replace the values themselves. It tries to numerically measure human production and need, and presents it as the true value system. But as with any abstraction, the deeper meaning is lost by the very act of abstracting over it. It misleads people into believing that the accumulation of money and private property are the source of status, happiness and welfare instead of esteem, self-actualization and other intrinsic human values. And this flawed abstraction also leads to inequality and inefficiency.
If you litter your private property with cigarette butts, and pay someone to clean it up, does their work have value? In a capitalist sense, it does. Yet I hold that it doesn't. What would have value is if you stopped throwing away your cigarette butts.
As a software engineer, I was paid rather well to develop a payment backend for an online sports betting/casino system, simply because they didn't want to pay 3% or whatever on every transaction to any of the gazillion existing payment system providers. In my opinion, my work did not have any value. And it certainly wasn't worth multiple times the work of the food delivery guy, who takes food to people who would otherwise be unable to get it.

So no, I don't think the difference is private property. The difference is the freedom to live by your own value system vs blindly believing in a flawed material abstraction.