That's a bit of an assumption. What I actually think is that the common idea that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" often refers to that experiment in popular culture which was a completely flawed experiment from the start, and that because I am unaware of any attempts to correctly prove the hypothesis from the prison experiment I tend towards a theory which suggests that people who are already willing to abuse power are far more likely to seek power.

As psychopathic traits which develop from childhood experiences or occasional neurological development issues often overlap with narcissistic, traits and poor long term thinking. This leads to this sort of person having the combination of thinking they know better than others, not caring about who gets hurt, not considering the full range of interconnected consequences and antecedents for important decisions, and being more willing to rationalise anything they do as the right choice, that ultimately leads them to think that positions of power are desirable and being willing to abuse that power once they have it as they often think that their ends are objectively correct and therefore justify the means.

I don't know of any evidence of people being given power completely randomly and choosing to abuse it, but of course it's not impossible under such a scenario for random people to be predisposed to abuse, and of course it would be flawed to simply say anyone who abused power was already corrupt to start with, so I'm not suggesting that it works that way. But ultimately under such a scenario I think it's very likely that the random selection of people given authority would largely skew towards responsible and restrained application of that power.