There still are benefits to using 24-bit audio in the recording and processing stages. This is in large part due to most recording systems expecting 0dbVU = -18dbFS and the subsequent processing that can bring the noise floor well into the audible range (dynamic range processors are notoriously effective at this, and heavily used in modern music). We could take a simple example of a snare drum being recorded at 16bit, being EQ'd with a +6db boost anywhere on the spectrum, then compressed with a reduction peaking around 10db (not uncommon). After brickwall limiting in the final mix, this track will easily have a noise floor (via quantization error only) > -68dbFS best case. (-96db starting. -12dbFs peaking snare, +6 + 10 to noise floor, assuming limiting with no gain reduction) -68dbFS is already audible in a critical listening scenario. With dozens (sometimes hundreds) of uncorrelated signals being subjected to similar processing, this noise floor raises well into the audible range for even a modest playback system.
While I realize that delivery format is the only thing important to most people, it is important to differentiate since the article does make a point to separate out musicians, sound engineers and hardware reviewers. These are groups of people that _should_ be aware of the benefits of higher sample resolution. Since it's fairly obvious that most people in these categories are confused about their ability to discern delivery formats, it's not beneficial to confuse them even further about working formats.
To be more succinct, the difference between 16bit and 24bit is largely inaudible when the source material is worked in a higher resolution format and properly converted.