As much as it's appealing to point out hypocrisy, and as little sympathy for Altman, I honestly think that's a very reasonable stance to take. There're many powers with which, given the opportunity, I would choose to trust only exactly myself.

It’s reasonable for the holder to take. It’s also reasonable for all of the non-holders to immediately destroy the holder.

It was “reasonable” for the US to first strike the Soviet Union in the 40s before they got nuclear capabilities. But it wasn’t right and I’m glad the US didn’t do that.

But by that logic nobody else would trust you.

Correct. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that they're wrong, it only means that I have a much greater understanding and insight into my own motivations and temptations than I do for anyone else.

It means your logic is inefficient and ineffectual as trust is necessary.

Well thats easy to understand - not ideal analogy but imagine if in 1942 you would by accident constructed fully working atomic bomb, and did so and showed it around in full effect.

You can shop around seeing who offers you most and stall the game for everybody everywhere to realize whats happening, and definitely you would want to halt all other startups with similar idea, ideally branding them as dangerous, and whats better than National security (TM).

in such a situation, the only reasonable decision is to give up/destroy the power.

i think you'd be foolish to trust yourself (and expect others) to not accidentally leak it/make a mistake.

I know myself better than you know me, and you know yourself better than I know you. I trust myself based on my knowledge of myself, but I don't know anyone else well enough to trust them on the same level.

AI is perhaps not the best example of this, since it's knowledge-based, and thus easier to leak/steal. But my point still stands that while I don't trust Sam Altman with it, I don't necessarily blame him for the instinct to trust himself and nobody else.