Guide · made with Zapier
How do I build an AI board of advisors that tells me the truth about my work?
Wire five AI advisor personas to your real transcripts and performance data, tell them to disagree with you, then ask the questions you avoid.
The short answer
I built an AI board of five advisors using Zapier, and I fed it the transcripts from the best episodes of my podcast, the show's real performance data, and my most recent changes, so it knew the show instead of only knowing my pitch about the show. The five members are AI personas modeled on the public ideas of MrBeast, Joe Rogan, Naval Ravikant, Seth Godin, and David Goggins. None of those people took part, and none of them saw any of this. I told the personas they were allowed to disagree and call me out, then asked things I would normally skip: what am I censoring, what version of myself am I protecting, what decision am I avoiding because failing would expose me. On the one tradeoff question I forced, three of the five said optimize for depth and sacrifice growth, and a couple of the answers hit hard enough that I committed on camera to 30 days of tighter structure and cutting anything that doesn't earn its spot.
Build your own AI board with Zapier →Built with Zapier, the sponsor of this video.
Step by step
Pick five voices you already argue with in your head ▶0:19
I chose five people whose ideas shape how a lot of us think, and built a persona for each: MrBeast, Joe Rogan, Naval Ravikant, Seth Godin, and David Goggins. These are AI personas built on what those people have said in public. They are not the real people, and the real people had nothing to do with this. The point of five is that they pull in different directions, so you get a disagreement instead of a chorus.
Tell the board it is allowed to disagree and call you out ▶0:29
The default behavior of an AI advisor is to agree with you politely, which is useless. I gave the board explicit permission to disagree and to call me out. When I said I wasn't censoring myself, the Rogan persona came back with a line about how almost everyone thinks they're not censoring, and you can spot it in the seams.
Feed it your real data, not your description of your work ▶0:36
This is the part that separates a board from a chat window. Using Zapier, I connected the transcripts from the best episodes of my podcast, the show's real performance data, and my most recent changes. So the board actually knew the show, not just what I say about it. When the Nate Soares episode came up, I could point at real watch-time numbers instead of a feeling.
Open wide, then push on one answer ▶1:00
My first question was simply what the next step for the show is, and all five answered from their own angle. Then I picked one and pushed. I asked Rogan what he meant by two worlds, and the follow-up is where the useful stuff came out: the tension between the polished creator-business world and the raw conversation world.
Force a tradeoff and count the votes ▶4:21
Open questions get you essays. I asked the board to tell me what to sacrifice, and gave it three options: growth, depth, or leverage. Three said depth, one said leverage, one said growth. Counting the votes turned five opinions into one decision, so the board said go for depth.
Ask the questions you would not ask out loud ▶5:26
The board earns its keep on the questions you'd never post publicly. I asked what version of myself I'm trying to protect, what decision I'm avoiding because failing would expose me, and what I secretly want this show to give me. The Godin persona said I want permission to matter, not attention but resonance, and that landed harder than any tactic in the conversation.
Disagree with it out loud when it's wrong ▶6:21
This isn't an oracle. When the Goggins persona said failure would expose my discipline and not my talent, I said on camera that I disagree. Not everything they said was right, and treating the output as a verdict defeats the point. Argue back, and keep the two or three things you can't unhear.
Turn what hit you into a dated change ▶9:56
The breakthrough wasn't the advice, it was the system that turned all of it into action. I committed to 30 days of changes: tighter structure, tighter intros, and cutting anything that doesn't earn its spot. If it works, you'll feel it. If it doesn't, you get to watch me be wrong in public, which beats quietly disappearing.
“I don't agree with everything they said, but a couple of things hit me in the gut and I can't unhear them.”
Nick Standlea, in the video
Key moments
- ▶0:00The fear of quiet irrelevance
- ▶0:19Building the AI board of five
- ▶0:36Zapier wires in transcripts and analytics
- ▶1:00First question: what's next for the show
- ▶2:10Rogan persona on the two worlds
- ▶3:27What version of myself am I protecting
- ▶4:21Growth, depth, or leverage: the vote
- ▶5:26The decision I'm avoiding
- ▶7:32What scares me most
- ▶9:56The 30-day changes I'm making
Questions people ask
did the real MrBeast, Naval, and David Goggins actually give you advice?
No. Every member of the board is an AI persona modeled on what those people have said publicly. MrBeast, Joe Rogan, Naval Ravikant, Seth Godin, and David Goggins did not participate, were not contacted, and had no involvement in the video. When the page quotes a board member, it's quoting the persona's output, not the person.
how do I make an AI board of advisors give me real feedback instead of agreeing with me?
Two things did it for me. First, I told the board directly that it was allowed to disagree and call me out. Second, I connected real data, so it could contradict me with evidence instead of vibes. When I claimed I wasn't censoring myself, the board pushed back rather than accepting it.
what did you use Zapier for in the AI board?
Zapier did the connecting work behind the scenes. It pulled in the transcripts from the best episodes of my podcast, the show's real performance data, and my most recent changes, and fed all of that to the board. As I said in the video, it's the unsexy part: pulling the data and the transcripts so I could have a real conversation with the board.
what questions should I ask an AI board about my business?
The ones with teeth. I asked what the next step is, which side I'm censoring for, what version of myself I'm protecting, what decision I'm avoiding because failing would expose me, what scares me most, and what I secretly want this thing to give me. I also forced one tradeoff question with fixed options, which is what produced an actual decision.
growth vs depth vs leverage, which should a creator optimize for?
My board split three for depth, one for leverage, one for growth. The Naval persona's reasoning was that depth plus trust compounds and growth is a lagging indicator, so build the asset and let attention arrive as a byproduct. The Godin persona said earn the smallest audience that cares more than they scroll. That's this board on this show, not a universal answer.
is an AI board of advisors actually useful or is it a gimmick?
It was useful for me, but not the way I expected. The advice itself was mixed, and I said on camera that I disagree with some of it. What worked was hearing an uncomfortable thing said plainly, from data about my own work, in a place where nobody's feelings were at stake. A couple of things hit me in the gut and I can't unhear them.
what is quiet irrelevance and why is it worse than being wrong?
Quiet irrelevance is slowly disappearing while still working hard. That's the phrase from the board that hit me hardest, and it felt more like a horror movie than being wrong in public does. The Goggins persona framed the same thing as embarrassment now or regret later, and later is the scarier of the two.
Zapier sponsored this video. Nick chose what to build and what to say.