I wouldn’t say hi-res offers no audible benefit itself, because I like to remain open-minded. However I also believe the biggest benefit comes from the fact that creating a 24/96 or 24/192 master forces the record companies to go back to the analogue master-tape and recapture it.
Many classic albums have been ostensibly remastered since their first release on CD, but despite what engineers may tell you, the term 'remastering' is applied to more than one specific process, which can lead to confusion (I'll stop short of saying 'deception').
What we (audiophiles) want it to mean is that the engineers have carefully extracted the earliest available analogue master from the dehumidified and air-conditioned vaults, sympathetically recaptured it using the best tape-decks, desks and AD converters known to man, performed digital repairs only where strictly necessary, and sent it out to the pressing-plant for re-issue in all its dynamic glory.
Unfortunately, that's not necessarily the case. A classic release could be given a nice 'remastered' sticker on the front of its CD case even if all the engineer has done is dig-up the ancient digital capture from 1982, re-EQ it, pass it through a NR filter, add some 21st-century-style compression/brick-wall limiting, then push it out for re-issue.
I like the fact that hi-res re-masters are more likely to have been created by the former process, or at least something close to it. Also, based on the few hi-res albums I have heard, hi-res remasters seem less likely to have been dynamically crucified, but I could just have been lucky with that one.