It takes time to report these things, you can't just bang it out overnight. In addition, breaking a preference falsification cascade can take a lot of hits: a lot of people didn't want to talk about Altman, but with every article in WSJ/NYT/WaPo revealing some more, that reluctance fades a little bit. That is how you go from a few months ago, there being nothing but a whisper here or there that Altman had been fired from YC as one of the crown jewel secrets of YC known to a handful of people, to now Paul Graham casually confirming it to the WSJ.

As for what the benefit is, the ongoing report is one benefit. If the law firm (named here for the first time, I believe) didn't know about, say, Sutskever's list of 20 incidents, well, they do now.

I benefit. You benefit. Everyone benefits when we learn more. Who fears these disclosures at the current point in time and why? What's your reason for questioning them? What do you have to lose?

It's called journalism. This is going to be happening for a while as journalists get more and more of the inside scoop. The new board also has a full slate ahead for it, including the investigation, recruiting a full board, and dealing with the non-profit and corporate structure which has a few holes showing. Plus there is all the stuff the company is actually doing with new products and the "Preparedness Framework" they are working on.

Up until recently, the press about OpenAI has been mostly "look at the shiny lights" and now it's going to get the Elon Musk treatment.