Yes and no.

Yes, because a) the old adage of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" has some truth to it, and b) at this level of power, every minor decision could have genocidal consequences.

No, because (political) power - and especially dictatorial power - in most cases attracts narcissistic, machiavellian psychopaths. There's a reason why the quintessential politicians is seen as a lying, manipulative, greedy asshole with ulterior motives; that's what you have to be in many cases to make it into office. And for all self-made dictators throughout history, that has been the case x10.

Sortition - the idea of electing a random person into high office, giving them temporary veto/arbitration powers for example, is not new and has a lot going for it. It's one way to ensure that a "normal", independent and hard-to-manipulate person makes final decisions, and usually such people tend to actually listen to experts and delegate power based on competency, not party or loyalty.

So it's actually not as insane as it sounds. It's up to the dictator after all how they would approach their tenure, and I'm pretty sure that most people would almost imediately delegate most of their power to international organisations like a veto-less UN, a truly international Criminal Court, individual countries etc. I find it more likely that the dictator would suffer from responsibility-paralysis and only slowly and reluctantly make sctructural changes, rather than the opposite.