How about more of your thought process and reasoning instead of a blanket ad hominem attack?
Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem.
Using something about someone to undermine an argument is an ad hominem.
People against AI regulations are lunatics: Not ad hominem. That guy is a lunatic so his opinion about AI regulations are also insane: Ad hominem.
I don't see that as the point. I think they were just opining. There doesn't seem to be an argument they are making or refuting so this cannot, by definition, be an "argument ad hominem" (argument to the person).
The parent comment to yours nails it with the given examples. The first is the conclusion to arguments -- which they did not expound on -- "this opinion is lunacy"; and the second is specific argument that "you are a lunatic" and conclusion that therefore "your opinion is lunacy". That is an argument to the person.
(Not to speak to the quality of OP's comment for this message board. A comment explaining why they think it's crazy would be preferred.)
is different from
"you are a lunatic THEREFORE your opinion is invalid" (translates to: I think your conclusions came from your mental condition). Ad hominen.
It's quite easy to understand.
Fallacy lists are known to be vulnerable to sophists that take it apart literally instead of seeing the broader perspective of having them.
The introduction of a disruptive discussion (such as: is this a fallacy or not?) is a common technique for diversion.
You should have acknowledged that the other guy didn't meant to insult when he tried to explain. But you did the opposite, you doubled down on making it an insult. It's a sign of a bad conversation, in which one or more participants are not interested in the discussion.